Redstate

on the issues of discretionary spending and corruption. Not to mention the perception spread by the Foley affair that the Republican leadership was hiding a sexual predator, skillfully manipulated by the Dems.

today. Seems he thinks adhering to current immigration laws equates to a 'managed economy' (a la Hillary). Free markets don't mean a chaotic free-for-all ruled by law breaking pirates.
I usually enjoy reading Henninger but he's clearly drinking from the same bowl of soup as Jeb and Mehlman on this issue.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

"Bush and Mehlman must think we're a bunch of fools."

I think that is beyond dispute. Whether it be GW or Jeb or any of the present Republican "leadership". And why not? They got away with it before so they no doubt think they can continue. But I think this time they may be wrong.

Here's an interesting article by James Pinkerton of Newsday. Here's why he thinks the GOP will win in 2008.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppink5235874may31,0,2572004.colu...

Fortunately we have the benefit of a massive empiracle experiment. California is like a giant test tube that we can use to verify or disprove the Bush/Melhan hypothesis.

First we should note the beginning conditions for our thought experiment. In 1986 California was a reliably "Red" state. From Eisenhower through Bush '41 it voted Republican in 9 out of 10 elections and only went Democrat in the Johnson landslide after the Kennedy asassination. This coupled with the fact that a very large percentage of the Hispanics who received amnesty in 1986 lived in California makes it a perfect test environment.

Now the experiment:
The amnesty happened in 1986. It took a few years for the Hispanics to gain citizenship and the right to vote. The last Republican victory occurred in 1988. From 1992 to present, the Republican candidates have not even been in the running. In fact, for the past 15 years we have seen that the only way a Republican can win a significant statewide election in California is to come out strongly against illegal aliens. It worked for Pete Wilson in 1994. He was in bad trouble and facing defeat until he came out in support of Prop 187 to cut-off services to illegals. In worked again for Arnold during the Grey-out recall when he ran strongly on a platform that had a centerpiece of repealing drivers licenses for illegals.

Conclusions:
Some have commented that the Hispanic vote against Republicans and subsequent Republican losses in California can be blamed on Proposition 187. But Prop 187 happened in 1994 and Republicans started losing in 1992 and since then have only won when they ran on getting tough on illegals. The Bush/ Melhan hypothesis seems to be entirely false.

Recomendations:
Amnesty shills are just saying these things to mask their true agenda which is providing an unlimited supply of cheap labor for their campaign contributors in the Chamber of Commerce. We should not let them get away with it. When the likes of Bush/Rove/Melhan make these ridiculous statements they should be challenged to identify specifically which "Blue" states amnesty will cause to turn "Red". My guess is that they can't convincingly make a case for even one state. But it is easy to make the case that amnesty will turn Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida "Blue". How is that a winning strategy for the GOP?

How many of you still want Jeb Bush as the final choice for '08 Vice President now that you also know that he's for this crappy amnesty legislation, just like President Bush?

They will only vote if they're given an opportunity to vote you idiots. Is that what it's come to?

How about not granting them the privilege and then we don't have to worry about how they will vote. It's incredulous to me that they're even acknowledging that their motiviation for selling-out our culture and security is votes.

The voters that you need to fear is the 100+ million who already have the right to vote.

this debacle of a bill will keep those who are pushing it from anything resembling either elected office or helping an election, they will be tarred and feathered with this bill the rest of their careers, as it should be. They might as well pony on up to the Democrats because they are done in the Republican party as the Republican party will be no more anyway. There is a small party trying to get a foothold and if this passes it should be considered for those of us shut out of the Republican/RINO/Liberal party http://www.americafirstparty.org/

President Bush, Governor Bush and Mehlman. It's like they are following step by step instructions on how to destroy the Republican party as quickly and completely as possible.

The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire

... SO SAD, indeed.

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org

With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.

I don't care if all illegal immigrants were required to vote Republican for the rest of their lives as a condition of amnesty.

It's wrong.

And if the Republican hiearchy endorses this, I'm gone. Not only that, but for what it's worth, I will actively work against them.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

I was watching today's press briefing by White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on C-SPAN, he said that the current immigration bill "is not amnesty" and then continues to use a dictionary definition of amnesty to support the immigration bill as it is. Once the White House posts the transcript, I will have it here.

Mr. Snow, if 12 million people who entered the U.S. illegally are able to get citizenship if they follow some rules for a few years is not amnesty, then what is it?

Since Jeb is for the immigration bill I guess he needs to turn in his conservative card. Jeb was the most conservative governor in Florida's history and probably one of the most conservative governors in the country during his time in office. But since he is not walking your line he should turn in his card. Shame on the WSJ for showing their viewpoints. I forgot that Ken was a closet liberal. I guess anyone who does nor share your viewpoint is not really a conservative.

Let's not debate the issue. You can shout Amnesty until your blue in the face it still does not make it true and it will not scare enough people.
Mike C

Below is the second section of this article: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3201361&page=1

"...
Aside from the former governor [Jeb Bush], the Senate bill is being supported by current Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, and Senator Mel Martinez, a Cuban immigrant who is chairman of the Republican National Committee and has been intricately involved in crafting the immigration bill.

Martinez said on CNN Sunday that the immigration bill "could be the saving of the Republican Party, frankly."

David E. Johnson, a Florida-based Republican consultant, said Romney's immigration stance could harm his relationship with Florida lawmakers, including Bush, who has strongly signaled that Romney is his preferred candidate for president.

But the issue still may not be a "deal-breaker" for Bush, Johnson said. And any political harm could be outweighed by additional support he might receive from the party's conservative base, which is more skeptical of the immigration bill than the state's top GOP officials, he said.

"It will hurt him with the Bush people, but it won't hurt him too much with the rank and file," Johnson said. "People are disgusted with what's going on as far as immigration. There's a feeling that basically the party leadership is ignoring the rank and file."

Still, Florida Republicans -- with their relatively high proportion of Hispanics -- are more inclined than Republicans in other states to support a bill that would allow undocumented immigrants to achieve citizenship, said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.

Without naming names, Diaz-Balart said he's troubled with the "tone" being struck by several Republican presidential candidates.

"Hispanics are looking for sensitivity, and for people who are acting in a reasonable fashion, and are not succumbing to unfortunate instincts," said Diaz-Balart, a McCain supporter. "There are a number of worrisome overtones that we're hearing in this debate. I would hope that we would not hear them in the presidential campaign, but unfortunately we're already hearing them."

David Rivera, a Republican state representative from Miami, said he is still considering supporting Romney for president. But he said Romney's position on immigration gives him "pause" in making his choice, since he wants a candidate who appreciates the contributions made by both documented and undocumented immigrants.

.... "

People not to support:
1. Jeb Bush
2. Charlie Crist
3. Mel Martinez
4. Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mel Martinez was quoted as saying that the bill "could be the saving of the Republican party" ... What, I don't understand. Anybody care to elucidate?

If Romney does not support the immigration bill he will lose the state in a general election.

Mike C

It seems enough of the party elites have bought into this utter nonsense that they will drive the party into demographic oblivion.

Most Hispanics favor the Democrats. They have done so for decades. They continue to do so now, and they will continue to do so so long as mass immigration persists. There are many reasons for this pro-Dem preference, and the fact that Dems are liberal on immigration is only one of them. In other words, the GOP would have to cave in and go liberal on a lot more than just immigration in order to ever even break even with Hispanics.

As to California and the myths surrounding Prop 187; at most 187 hastened the inevitable and made existing conditions slightly worse. By inevitable I mean the increased participation of latinos, and by existing conditions I mean the already-existing Hispanic preference for Democrats that pre-dated 187. And we should not forget that 187 passed easily, and carried Pete Wilson to a landslide reelection; the last significant Republican victory in that state under normal situations. California was always going to turn blue with the exodus of whites out of the state, and the influx of Hispanic and Asian immigrants.

The truth about the demographic situation is that if it were not for the fraudulent 1965 immigration reform, and subsequent bad reforms, then the GOP would be enjoying the natural majority that was predicted for them before the effects of the 1965 act became apparent. California would not be as red as Texas, but it would be competitive. The rest of the Southwest would remain a solid GOP block, and the GOP lock on the South (gained by winning a large majority of the white vote to make up for losing almost all of the black vote) would not be threatened by a growing population of pro-Dem immigrants.

People like Bush, Mehlman, Barone, Barnes, and others at the WSJ have some nerve to support an unending mass wave of naturally pro-Democrat immigrants, and then tell conservatives its their fault for being so 'mean.'

By the way, there is a good article on this by Heather MacDonald at National Review online today.

Mehlman is correct. I have personal knowledge here. My father was a long-time operative for the California Democratic party. His last hurrah was a few weeks in D.C. in early 1995 closeted with Leon Panetta on how the Clinton administration and the California Democratic party could exploit Governor Wilson's disastrous support for the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 so as to ensure a long-term Democratic majority here.

I was by then a Republican, and Pop told me what he and Panetta were doing in loving detail, knowing it would drive me nuts. He and Panetta had their initial discussions during the 1994 campaign and could see what was coming. So Pop told me exactly how he and Panetta planned to exploit this opening, and I watched helplessly as Governor Wilson drive the California GOP into oblivion.

Then Pop and Panetta got together in D.C. on exactly how to do it. Basically the Clinton administration shifted INS funding from around the country to California to dramatically speed up the naturalization (citizenship) process here. A very, very, high proportion of new citizens register to vote and vote - they take their citizenship obligations seriously.

So California suddenly had an ENORMOUS number of newly naturalized citizens from Mexico within 18-24 months. And the California Democratic party had staff ready to register them all as Democrats.

So basically almost every GOP candidate for statewide office started out a million votes in the hole afterwards. By 1998 we had only one statewide office.

For a description of just how devious my father was as a Democratic apparchnik, go here:

http://volokh.com/posts/1177454007.shtml#210028

Pop held back, for SIX YEARS, dynamite opposition research on a GOP candidate for statewide office until the guy ran for U.S. Senator, and then bombed him with it by surprise to turn what was expected to be an easy GOP victory into a win for a sacrificial Democratic candidate named Alan Cranston.

The Illegals the "Come out of the shadows" won't be able to pay the $5,000.00 fine, our Congress will not require the illegals to pay back taxes, interest and penalties.

It is so ridiculous to think that the illegals have to be rounded up and sent home..if the government would put forth a 100% effort to enforce the immigration laws, go after business owners that hire illegals and start fining them,the jobs for illegals would dry up and they would go home on their own.

What really gets me is that somehow the Congress and our President think that economic result of letting the illegals stay will be a plus to the economy. How can you say that when our social benefits expenses will jump by some unknown amount.

It's a bad bill and bashing the Conservatives that don't support the McCain/Kennedy/Bush Amnesty Bill is bad politics.

Mr. Sandor,

You might consider the possibilities that:

a) Only legal immigrants may become citizens;

b) The naturalization (qualifying for citizenship) process requires YEARS of lawful residency in America.

So all those Mexican immigrants who became new citizens and California voters 1995-2000 had been here lawfully for years - in most cases they had come here lawfully during the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations.

Unless, of course, you hate all immigrants equally, legal ones as well as illegal ones. In which case, as the American Indians used to say, "I want all you white people to go back to Europe where you came from."

People like you DESERVE this immigration bill. You make it harder for the rest of us to fight it.

My ideal solution would be to having roaming ICE agents rounding up illegals and sending them back to the home country. But since I'm like you (a realist), I concede that such a plan would never happen (not enough funding, and definitely not enough will power). We would essentially create a gestapo, and that's not something that people would appreciate.

Here is the solution:
1) We actually strengthen and enforce the laws that are already on the books to prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens. If they knowingly do, they should not only be fined, but also imprisoned. The whole "I didn't know that documents were forged" argument is used too often, therefore we help train HR personnel to recognize these documents.

2) We actually create stronger borders. This is a two step policy. First, we create a high-tech fence along the entire length of our southern border, not just portions of the border as proposed by the current immigration proposal. We include cameras, manned stations distributed along the border. I would even make the fence electric, but that would not go over too well. Second, we significantly increase the number of Border Patrol agents stationed at our borders. Not only that, but also give the agents more rights to use force against illegals (i.e., change the rules of engagement). Heck, if they have signs such as these at Area 51 , why can't we put them on our southern border. I'm sure the fear of "deadly force" would dissuade some from crossing. The liberals and cases such as this one have undermined our national security. As a consequence, agents are now more scared to use force and also less people are choosing to join the Border Patrol for fear of imprisonment. What does this say to our neighbors?

If we dry up the jobs available to illegals, they will go home and also new ones are less likely to cross. This is the "Smoke Out" strategy. In addition, we need to get serious with our southern border. This includes making the aforementioned fence and increasing number of agents stationed there. It solves the problem without giving amnesty to illegals.

No matter how you spin it, the end result is the same: 40% was the peak, the absolute best Bush could do. Since then, the Hispanic support of GOP candidates has plunged back to the historical level of 30-some %.

That is the bottom line, the cold, hard truth.

If I get $1 for every $2 you give to the other fellow, it does not matter how much money you give me--I will always be poorer.

The GOP has never won by pandering--that has always been the job of the Donkeys--and now we are going to somehow out-pander the Democrats?

If these Hispanics are such "natural Republicans" why aren't we trying to sell them on the attributes and planks of the platform they will so naturally support?
Why do we have to promise goodies if they already agree with the Party's stand on morals and policy?
Shouldn't "here's what we stand for--and which you agree with--vs. that other guy stands for the opposite" be enough to persuade support the GOP?
And why should we think those who are lured into the party by a free candy bar will stay when the party refuse to give them another, say higher quotas at universities, or percentage set-asides for Hispanics in federal contracts?

"But, but! If we scare them off now, they'll vote for the Democrats for sure forever!"

Wait. Isn't that contrary to the reason the Republicans think they can get away with this, i.e. who'll the base vote for anyway, the Democrats? If they really are natural Republicans, then they already agree with the party platform--a platform in direct opposition to the Democrat platform--so why would they vote for the guy who disagrees with and actively works to undermine their morals and ideals?

How many times has the base of the GOP been kicked in the teeth in the last 8 years? We are natural Republicans, we've suffered slights greater than "some guy who I don't know, who doesn't follow the law, was arrested but, he shares my skin color, so I'm mad at the guy who said he should be arrested and am never going to vote for his party again."
And we are still here . . . some, getting less . . . a bridge too far.

No, not granting amnesty is not a slight to Hispanics who are natural Republicans. I can remember a time when the GOP touted their credentials as the law and order party. Where's the law, where's the order?

I saw this sign on a back of an amnesty protester. About sums things up.

Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich

There is an old politcal maxim that I think is in play here...When robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support.

Whether or not you agree or disagree that you can call it amnesty, it is clear that supporters of the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill" (D or R) are attempting to buy the future votes of these currently lawbreaking illegal immigrants by offering them something less than the full measure of justice called for by the laws currently on the books, the last "real" amnesty" bill.

They are also trying to avoid taking responsibility for the fact that they have failed miserably to enforce the existing laws and would now ask the citizens of this country to believe that they "really mean it" this time and just "give us one more chance". BS I say.

They want to be judged by their intentions, not their actions. Well their actions speak louder than any of the foul stench emanating from their pie holes.

You guys want to argue "Amnesty, not amnesty" knock yourselves out. You're missing the point. These guys are ready to sell our sovereignty and our security down the road for some potential future votes.

Secure the border. Period. Then we can talk.

The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.
Mark Twain

I guess Ken Mehlman hasn't kept up with what's going on at the RNC. They have fired all of their phone solicitors. Seems that donations have fallen off drastically because of the President's and the party's support of the immigration bill. The RNC denies this, but the fired phone solicitors claim otherwise. They say that potential donors are outraged at the administration and the Republican Party because of this. So the donors are hitting them where it hurts.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070531-050131-2781r.htm