If You Think Jon Kyl Deserves a Primary Opponent, You're in the Wrong Party
And don't let the front door hit you on the backside.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Immigration — Comments (96) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last week, Rob Bluey highlighted the efforts of a woman named Michelle Dallacroce to oppose Jon Kyl in his primary (apparently, in 2012). Today, I was forwarded this article in the New York Times which discusses people who are apparently interested in giving Jon Kyl more of the same.
This phenomenon sparked a lively email discussion amongst us RedStaters, and I don't have the energy to rehash the whole thing, but let me summarize my position on this matter thusly: the second group of people, the one described in the NYT article, are fine with me; insofar as they are angry with Jon Kyl and letting him know it. You can be sure that he gets the message. The people in the first group, the ones described in Mr. Bluey's piece, can take a hike as far as I'm concerned, and I won't shed a tear over their loss.
More below...
Let me say at the outset that I get single-issue voting. Believe you me, nobody gets that more than I do. I will absolutely not pull the lever for any candidate that either (1) does not have a pro-life voting record, or (2) does not profess themselves as being opposed to legalized abortion. Thus, Harry Reid and Kay Bailey Hutchison are both out as far as getting my votes. But I think it's also relevant that you've never seen me go after Lisa Murkowski, KBH, John Sununu, Ted Stevens (for abortion), or the Maine sisters on the front page. Issues don't get dealt with outside of a voting coalition. And when there came a time in 2005 when I was honestly ready to walk away, I was ready to *walk away*. Not cover John Cornyn in tar and feathers and then set him afire. Because even if the coalition left me behind, it was still better than the alternative.
Well, there are apparently certain people who don't get that, and have gone completely off the deep end as I'm concerned, here. You want to burn Jon Kyl - easily one of the five most conservative members of the entire Senate - at the stake while Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and countless others still have Senate seats? When North Dakota is served by two liberal Democrats, and South Dakota by one? Is just a tiny bit of perspective too much to ask, especially considering that unlike 2005, we no longer have a 10-seat majority?
I personally think Kyl's explanation for his involvement with this bill is a perfectly good one - I have full confidence that Teddy Kennedy could have drawn up a bill that would have gotten full support from all 51 donks, plus a few Republicans, knowing full well that Bush was not going to veto almost anything with respect to immigration legislation. Kyl stuck his nose in there and made this bill something that a few more Republicans could support, and in the process, probably cost the bill a few Democratic supporters. Where I come from, that's called *making a bill better*, and it's not something we burn people at the stake for.
I don't have views on immigration that are nearly as restrictionist as many conservatives, but I am *sympathetic* to those views because I understand the virtues of coalition voting. As I've said before, I'm happy to see a fence built on the border, plus a moat filled with poisonous creatures, if that's what it takes. In general, I support reform to the system, but this issue is less important to me than it is to many others, and I can *also* see the virtues of settling the manifold border issues first (for the sake of re-estalblishing trust) before the other aspects of immigration reform come to the table in a serious way.
But if you are the sort of person who would actually *work against* a man like Jon Kyl - well, that is certainly your right, and I will be glad for you to exercise it. It will let me know, in a very clear way, who I don't belong in a voting coalition with.
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | Let Our Nation's Leaders Know: NO AMNESTY — Comments (10) »
If You Think Jon Kyl Deserves a Primary Opponent, You're in the Wrong Party 96 Comments (0 topical, 96 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I agree it is silly to run someone who is "more conservative" than Jon Kyl in a primary. Kyl is one of the most solid conservatives in the Senate, despite this apostasy.
I do, however, strongly disagree with how he handled this immigration bill. I understand his strategy, to try and get some concessions made on better enforcement, but ultimately I think he just made the bill more likely to get passed with a little window dressing and his "blessing" on this compromise.
A much better strategy would have been to let Ted Kennedy completely write this bill, and then hammer away at it in the arena of public arena. Democrats would be scared to even go near it. Instead, we have a bipartisan, grand "compromise" where the open borders crowd essentially gets everything it wants, and we get a few "promises" to eventually start enforcing the border.
Conservatives are completely justified with being furious at Kyl. I volunteered quite a bit for his campaign, and financially supported him, and I feel he completely betrayed us. He promised in his campaign that he would oppose any kind of amnesty, it was a major theme of his campaign. Now he is one of the main sponsors of Ted Kennedy's amnesty bill.
The Republican Party will pay an enormous price if this amnesty bill passes with bipartisan support, and the Conservative base will make sure those Republicans who supported this bill understand what happens when you stab them in the back.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I think there's a very good case that Kyl made a poor strategic decision by not just saying, "this bill stinks, let the Democrats own it, Bush or no Bush". That said, the people considering a primary challenge are still insane. Kyl is one of our best and is trying to do the right thing here.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
The original poster clearly is not from a southwestern state, such as Az or CA which have been destroyed by illegal immigration. Los Angeles, for instance, is a third world nation today.
I'm furious at Kyl because he campaigned one way, then governed another. We conservatives have been burned like that SO many times. At least Specter comes right out and says who he is (a liberal).
I want to see who's up for re-election in 2008, and I will donate and work for their opponents. That includes Chambliss (Ga.) and Graham (SC). I hope it teaches some lessons. I am FURIOUS.
You're right about LA
On the original issue about Kyl, I have no problem with trying to dump a Republican incumbent in the primary over choose your favorite hot button issue IF it's not likely to result in an even worse Democrat winning the general election.
In a strong Republican state like South Carolina, I would really like to see somebody end Lindsay Graham's career in the primary, because a credible Republican replacement would probably go on to be elected in the general. That's a riskier strategy in a purple or blue state. Arizona used to be a strongly Republican state, but with the increasing Mexican-American vote (and no doubt some Mexican-Mexican votes) to bolster the Democrats, Republicans can't take Arizona for granted.
After living in Texas for three years (roughly). Never did I imagine that my residency in a border state gave me some special moral authority to speak about immigration policy, just like living in Tennessee doesn't give me any special moral authority to speak about government owned corporations which produce electric power. And I *certainly* never imagined that living in Texas gave me both (1) special moral authority to speak on the issue of immigration, *and* (2) special moral authority to determine which Republicans, specifically, deserved to be run out of elective office (which is the point of this post).
Clearly, I have lack of entitlement issues.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Its you and your ilk that got us into this fix by failing to act in Congress the past 6 years. I say your position and words paint you as more concerned about election results than principles.
"Where I come from, that's called *making a bill better*"
Then you lie to yourself - where I come from its called MAKING A BAD BILL into LAW.
40 is enough to filibuster. And that's all that is needed as a weapon with which they can get the concessions needed to fix this, if it is fixable.
For some reason, you are damnably foolish about the impact of the law. You seem more concerned with winning elections than with the principles of security and future of the US Republic.
Conservatives don't compromise (as in "give up on") *fundamental* principles for political gains. And making this bad bill "better" doesn't absolve it from being a BAD LAW as it stands, Leon - nor does it lessen the price to be paid by those who would aid and abet its passage.
And ANYONE, Sen Kyl included, that will compromise principles and break promises instead of fighting a bad law with everything he has, and not only be complicit, but compel others in the abandonment of their principles (as he has done in defeating amendment in cahoots with Kennedy), well they deserve a primary opponent who will stand up when it is this vital an issue.
For if the very sovereignty, safety and the future of the Republic isn't such an occasion, then what in the world *is*, in your apparently shallow and cynical political view?
If you agree the bill should be passed basically as is, like Kyl says, without fixing the utter lack of reality and accountability (no enforcement first with any teeth, no costs, no explanation nor funding to staff the DHS to run the investigations, no separate treatment for illegals from terrorist countries, etc) Leon, then you should burn your conservative card and stand over with Ted Kennedy. With "settle for less" backstabbers like you, conservatives don't need any more false friends.
Thanks. Hold that pose.
(WHAMM!)
(Twirling bat)
Anybody else who can't argue without making personal attacks? I ask merely because the baby's finally in a proper milk coma and I plan to go back to bed soon.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Thanks. Perfect. Saw a lot of "fake superiority" like yours today at a labor function, when we veterans rode by with the flag waving. Just on the way to the Fort Logan cemetery to visit a kid I buried in 2004. Anbar, USMC. IED.
To the topic at hand: I noticed you didn't address the salient points: Leon is wrong because making a bad law better by compromising your principles does not make it a good law - nor does it make he person doing the compromising immune to consequences. Consequences such as primary opponents. And there are vital issues at hand, not political tradeoffs.
No personal attacks there that I could see. Just a clear direct and unvarnished piece. My apologies if your delicate sensitivities are unable to deal with the direct approach I took. I did take the liberty of providing a bit of education for you - a quick dictionary hit for the definitions of the words that seemed to upset you so greatly:
back·stab Definition:
betray somebody: to do or say something harmful to somebody after pretending to be a friend
Well, if the shoe fits...
Likewise,
ilk (noun) Definition:
sort: a kind or sort of person or thing
journalists and others of that ilk
So whats your problem? Those aren't attack words- they merely frame the participants well. Anyone that voted for Sen Kyl or sent him money because he was a hard-liner on immigration justifiably feels "backstabbed" by him - and by those defending/enabling him. I dare say that Leon would feel justified in using the same term to describe the actions of someone that had been staunchly pro-life and had then worked on passage of a defective "compromise" Pro-Choice bill. And "Ilk" is applicable - they agree and are of the "same stuff" that the compromise is more important than opposing a bad law. Fits the definition, again.
If you wanted to say "You and your ilk" about me and a bunch of veterans, you'd be spot on. And if we said one thing and gave our word then did another, you'd be justified at calling it a backstab.
Banned immediately eh? So you can dish it out at Redstate but cannot take it? And nary even an email to my account's email - not even taking the courtesy to explain why you immediately killed the account.
Rest well Moe. I'm on vacation this week and can stay up as late as needed. Ban all you want, I'll clear cookies, make more accounts, gmail addresses and change my proxy if I need new IP addresses. I can probably write a perl script that will do it with minimal effort.
Nah. Not worth it. Ban this account if it makes you feel better. I will not be back posting with it. But maybe you should rest your ego and buy a dictionary before you do your juvenile "baseball bat" act that you'd never dare do face to face.
One thing I do know that you can't construe as an insult or attack: You never know how long you have your kids for, so cherish the time, even if its when you're changing diapers. Happy Memorial day. Sleep well.
Out of all the Editors and Directors, I'm the closest thing standing to your position by a country mile. But our terms forbid a return once you've been shown the door. So, adieu.
P.S. Things get nastier if you try a third time.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"I don't have views on immigration that are nearly as restrictionist as many conservatives"
First off, anyone who uses the term "restrictionist" is suspect on this issue. It's a tad like talking about being "pro-choice".
Second, you appear not to understand that with a two-party state like the US, everyone inside the conservative movement won't have the same priorities as you. To you, abortion is a deal-breaker.
To me, immigration is a deal-breaker. So to anyone who wants to take Kyl down, by all means go ahead. By supporting the bill, he has given the Democrats cover to do something terrible to the US. And unlike most policies, it is an act that cannot be rescinded or corrected later.
Sorry for using you as an example, but your timing here was perfect.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...are the most troubling to me. I have heard him mention this several times when defending the bill, but I think its clear now that this ending of chain migration is a sham. There is nothing definite in the bill that would bring this about, and indeed what little it does say would not begin until after eight years of increased chain migration to clear the existing backlog!
His other big selling point for conservatives is the creation of an allegedly genuine temporary guest worker program. But again, there are loopholes in that it isn't clear about how it will force the 'guests' to go home if they wish not to, and it allows the 'guests' to bring family members under certain circumstances, which will of course increase the likelihood of their putting down permanent roots.
So really the major bones thrown out to conservatives turn out to be nothing.
The big problem is: The enforcement provisions will be ignored.
Enforcement provisions are always ignored. (See 1986 and 2006 -- no fence built.)
Good bye, Republican party, if this is passed. By the way, good bye Social Security, though that's been coming for a while now.
Republican sellouts, I despite you. You've not only contributed to the third-world destruction of our nation, but also of our party over time.
Jon Kyl, may you rot in hell.
and may actually push back the date of the SS system collapse. However, it does make the eventual debt when it collapses larger than it would be without the additional people participating in the system.
The one way to prevent a collapse of a Ponzi scheme is to keep adding payors faster than you add receipients. This definately will give a big boost on the payor end now, but in 20 to 40 years it will also greatly increase the number of receipients.
I'm certain that "saving" Social Security (really delaying the inevitable collapse) factors in to the Democrat's support of massive immigration. I'm not so sure the Republicans have considered it.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
half a dozen of the other. This only "saves" Social Security if we go along with the fiction that SS is funded seperately from the rest of government. If all the money comes out of the same pot, as it does, then the fact that these immigrants will cost us trillions of dollars right now more than cancels out the additional money they will put into Social Security.
The Democrats expect to get around this by raising taxes, something they will be able to do more easily with their extra millions of voters. Have the Republicans considered this? My guess is that they have, and are content with it.
a different argument than I was making.
I was responding to the "goodbye Social Security" comment. And by the math of the Ponzi Scheme, adding workers now postpones the insolvency of the SS system. It also increases the time in which the net positive to the general fund occurs.
BUT!!!! As I said, it only delays the inevitable collapse of the system and makes the eventual problem larger. It in effect further borrows on our children and grandchildren's future incomes. It's bad policy, but let's be accurate about WHY it's bad policy.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
because the system will implode long before SS becomes a factor. Some 60% of the illegals are high school dropouts. They are a net DRAW on our system to the tune of about $19,000/year.
Who cares if they drop a few bucks toward Social Security? (Of course we all know SS is nothing but a scam anyone since the funds are not segregated. Guess what would happen if a BUSINESS ran a company and reported their liabilities this way?)
Ay carumba!
now so that I and the rest of my generation absorb the costs of putting it out of it's misery instead of letting it get even larger and leaving it to my son to pay for.
Adding immigrants doesn't "save" the Ponzi scheme, but it does delay the collapse. I'd show the math but I don't know how much extra income will come now VS how much cost we'll have later. I know we'll get MORE SS payors now if we legalize them, and more recipients later, but don't know how many more or how much additional they'll pay. But as a pure GUESS, I'd say it adds 10 years to the life of SS (it may be much less depending on how many illegals are already paying SS tax on fake SS cards...).
In any case, don't deny the math. It still works in our favor.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
The author makes the claim that based on an ideological scale, that if a Senator is conservative he or she merits backing for the GOOD of the party.
I think no matter conservative or liberal, mistakes require a slap. How severe depends on the issue, and the BIG PARTY strength picture.
The author also states that NO (single) pet issue should over shadow the strength of the party, even though he understands the feeling. His being pro-life.
This disaster of an immigration bill is MORE than a single issue category. This country has survived how many years since Roe vs Wade? The immigration issue has the potential to DESTROY this country. So excuse the heck out of anyone who may get upset enough to slap Sen. Kyl whether with a primary opponent, phone call, e-mail.
I'd also like to address moderator MOE--- Moderating and maybe banning someone for THOSE kind of comments? C'mon...no foul language or obscenities, it had a little passion big deal. Oh well....seems LAME to me...just saying smart feisty conservatives aren't big in numbers, don't be so quick to toss em out.
...I have to go where the aesthetics might take me.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
This disaster of an immigration bill is MORE than a single issue category. This country has survived how many years since Roe vs Wade? The immigration issue has the potential to DESTROY this country.
Spoken like a person who either doesn't know about the manifold effects of abortion on demand (apart from the 40+ million killed, that is), or doesn't care.
All issues have spillover effects, and I'll see your outrage over immigration and raise you one. You're not going to impress me with your sense of entitlement, here.
I really, honestly don't mind people getting ticked off about this (contrary to some conservative bloggers who have linked this post, who apparently suffer from reading comprehension problems), my point is very simply this: if we're going to start tossing people out on their ears, we could start with, say, Arlen Specter, or heck, even John McCain. I'm not a huge fan of McCain-bashing, mind you, but I understand that he's probably earned it with a large segment of the REpublican base. Jon Kyl is about the last guy in the GOP coalition who needs to be "taught a lesson," from any objective measure whatsoever.
Voting coalitions are held together by shared interests and values - some people in the coalition may not really care all that much about abortion (my thing), or might indeed be somewhat favorably disposed towards legalized abortion. I might not care all that much about illegal immigration, or might indeed be somewhat favorably disposed towards a comprehensive immigration reform (can I save people some time here? We'll just assume that there are five comments in response to this which criticize me for not referring to it by its "proper" name, "AMNESTY!!!!!!!" and move on). But we generally will vote for the same sets of candidates because in the aggregate, our combined interests will be advanced by those candidates.
However, if I could clone myself and send my clone to the Senate, he'd vote pretty much exactly like Jon Kyl. And so when people say that he doesn't even belong in the party, it lets me know that we do not indeed share a sufficient set of overlapping values to belong in a voting coalition together.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
By this blog's rationale we should dispense altogether with primaries, in which event another reality will come into focus: coalitions come apart, usually over a major issue. I don't know if immigration is such an issue but very well could be (abortion certainly hasn't come close). But issuing fatwas against people who decide to oppose in a primary an incumbent who has angered them certainly qualifies as a coalition-ending "issue," albeit procedural rather than substantive in nature.
If I lived in Arizona, there would be a strong chance I would vote against Kyl and support his opponent in the GOP primary over this issue. Where do I send my party registration card?
kyle is very wrong regarding this issue and those who stand with him will help ensure the Republican party stays in the minority for years and years.
Kyle deserves a primary challenge - he obviously needs a wake up call.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
No seriously.
Romney or Fred.
Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com
I'm not saying that Kyl does or does not deserve a primary opponent, but wasn't there some issue just a few months ago (and no I can't remember it) where Red State editors were saying things like "If GOP members of congress vote (or don't vote) on such and such then we're through with them. No more money during elections for them (etc etc)?"
I have no idea what side you were on then Moe, but I don't see how the issues are all that different?
Romney or Fred.
Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com
I'm only in this thread to remind people that the current immigration policy does not justify drive-by character assassination.
As to your question: I supported that particular drive, and I don't actually care overmuch about whether or not people primary challenge Kyl. Once the primary's over, though: one can not (at minimum) monkeywrench our Party's official candidates, or once can be a, ahem, RiNO. I think that this is slightly different from Leon's position, but that's life.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
but in that previous movement that you approved of, I don't remember anything about coming together after the primary.
Romney or Fred.
Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com
In gerenal I've always believed in coming together after the primary.
My gut reaction on immmigration was such that I have felt that I would vote against Chambliss even in the general. I guess I need to rethink that.
Romney or Fred.
Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com
The particular brouhaha that you are referencing, so I probably wasn't in with the pitchfork-carriers on that one. I've said something *similar* on only one occasion, and that was during the Miers fracas. And, rather significantly, what I said was that I would stop working to get Republicans elected - spend more time with my family and such - not that I would begin a campaign to oust John Cornyn from the Senate.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
...to the "NRCC pledge," which said no funding for those who don't support the troops at war. Yeah, that's an example of single-issue sword-falling, but that on just happens to be my single issue ;-)
Then I in fact opposed that, as I stated in the comments to the original piece on the matter. If someone can locate the original piece, I can locate my comment to that effect.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Link.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
My view on Kyle is a very positive one. I think he is the kind of conservative we need in office.
As far as his involvement with the immigration bill, I think his own explanation about it is sufficient. I can relate it to a personal experience I had in the military where something happened that drew me into it despite my opposition.
At the onset of the 1990's the military got into environmental responsibility very heavily. You can debate timing and why wasn't it sooner yadi yada etc etc. but they finally got involved with it. At the time, I was serving as the squadron environmental NCO on top of other duties. I got wind of a new plan that was going to be passed down on us from the Wing level and we were not going to be given any options for compliance. I was very opposed to this plan because it would have made aircraft maintenance almost impossible without committing violations on a daily basis. That was not a good thing at all.
I brought this to the attention to my chief (the E-9) and all the other section chiefs (E-7's) in a staff meeting. The reaction was unanimous opposition. However, the chief had the right idea, he wanted us fully involved in the development of the policy governing the process. In his view, and once I heard it, I agreed with him, if you can't stop it, jump into it and influence it as best you can to make it as workable as you can before you throw yourself on the grenade to stop it. At least if you lose, you will be in a better situation than you would have been otherwise.
That is what I think John Kyle has done, and I think if there is a chance we lose and this passes, it will be bad, but maybe he took a few of the really bad things out that would have been there otherwise. If, by chance, he didn't remove something you especially didn't like, at least he tried to make a difference. That is more than John McCain did because he was off campaigning, but that may have been a good thing ;-)
After all, remember we never though CFR would pass either, and look what happened. Someone trying to take some of the bad things out of it in the early stages would have been nice then too.
So, lets not be a baby and throw John Kyle out with the bath water.
That is my view on this situation.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
Very well said. People who have lived more than a few years close to the border understand just how much of a sell out this immigration reform truly is. John Kyl doesn't need to take George Bush's position on immigration reform.
This is crazy talk.
The Senate may be a lost cause on this. We will have to rely on the House to stop this thing.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
It isn't even his position here, per se, as much as it is his deception about chain migration, and promises he made to the people of Arizona only a few months ago. Obviously, Arizona primary voters will decide who their nominee is. But if we embrace the logic of this blog, I suppose that state's GOP delegation shouldn't even be invited to the 2008 convention if Republicans there decide to go with someone other than Kyle. I guess the door can hit Arizonans on the behind if they opt to scrap Kyle.
this issue is less important to me than it is to many others
This issue is all the others combined. This issue stands to make the Democrats the majority party for the next fifty years and make abortion-on-demand the law of the land for the same period. How Brownback can rationalize this to himself is beyond me.
If you care about guns or taxes or abortion or gay marriage or foreign policy or national security, immigration is the whole ballgame. People are policy, to slightly tweak the saying. Changing the American people means changing the policies of America. That is the calculus of the Ted Kennedy and the Democrats pushing this bill, and they seem to be correct. At least, I've never seen any of the Republican backers of this bill even attempt to suggest otherwise.
I always was under the impression that politics is at the base level about ideas, not racial or ethnic identity. If Republican/conservative opposition to immigration reform is premised on losing elections, then our ideas are truly dead.
Remember, this country was built on the backs of immigrants, through their sweat, tears and blood. And that hasn't *ruined* our nation, but rather made it stronger.
How did you manage to extract an appeal to "racial or ethnic identity" from my comment?
Needless to say, unlike the commenter above, your transgressions will go unpunished.
Remember, this country was built on the backs of immigrants
I assume you think you are actually saying something here, but I have no idea what it is.
From your entire "people are policy" paragraph to his comment. I have seen several of your brethren (and perhaps you yourself, though I don't have time to go check it) argue explicitly that this immigration bill should be stopped "for the good of the GOP" because "Mexicans/Latin Americans vote Democrat," and if your comment didn't come right out and say it, it sure as heck implied it.
Also, you seem to be suffering from some sort of transferrence problem, since this post does not reference or even mention Brownback, who has not announced his position with respect to this particular bill. I'm sure that an apology or correction or something will [not] be forthcoming.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Don't you think it's a stretch to say Jon's statement implies racism when it's apparent that the illegals will be dumacrats not because of their ethnicity, but because:
1) illegals don't have any respect for the rule of law, do not obey laws they don't agree with, just like those on the left;
2) illegals are, for the most part, poor and will want to maximize the handouts they recieve by voting for those whose policy it is to re-distribute wealth?
It looks like you're pretty quick to use a charge of racism without reason, exactly the way those on the left do, to end a debate without having to prove your point. How about trying to find an attack that's not so tired.
I didn't say that his statement implied racism, I said that it implicated racial and ethnic questions. The statement "African Americans tend to vote Democratic" is not a racist statement, but it does implicate race and ethnicity. Jon was attempting to make the same point about hispanics, but then tried to pretend that he was instead talking about immigrants generally, which is what I was calling him out on.
I did not use the word racist nor imply that I was calling him a racist.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Jon's comment mentioned nothing about hispanics. It looked to me that he was referencing poor illegal aliens.
In an earlier comment he mentioned that hispanics vote 2 - 1 Democrat over Republican -- Democrats not supporting your pro-life position. If it's OK for him to mention those facts, then I don't understand the point of your comment to him. If you don't think it's OK for him to point out those facts, my original comments to you still apply.
Jon's question was:
How did you manage to extract an appeal to "racial or ethnic identity" from my comment?
The sole purpose of my comment was to show that it was very easy indeed to extract such an appeal from Jon's comment - both from the comment itself, and from Jon's voluminous comment history.
This does not mean that that such an appeal is a *racist* one, or even an *objectionable* one; my comment merely pointed out that he had in fact made the appeal in the first place.
Let me analogize how this conversation has gone thus far:
Person A: I don't understand why you object to drinking milk just because it's white.
Jon Sandor: I never said that milk was white.
Me: Yes, you did, you said it right here (provides link).
You: Why are you calling Jon Sandor a racist?
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
I can see you've learned your argument from the liberal school of debate. I'll just add this last comment about it and let it go since this this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Jon Sandor did not make any reference to race or ethnicity in this thread.
The only reference to race or ethnicity was by Thesieve, recharacterizing John Sandor's words thus:
" I always was under the impression that politics is at the base level about ideas, not racial or ethnic identity. "
You supported Thesieve thus:
" It ain't that long of a stretch, Jon, From your entire "people are policy" paragraph to his comment. "
It seems like a hell of a long stretch to me to go from Jon Sandor:
" If you care about guns or taxes or abortion or gay marriage or foreign policy or national security, immigration is the whole ballgame. People are policy, to slightly tweak the saying. Changing the American people means changing the policies of America. That is the calculus of the Ted Kennedy and the Democrats pushing this bill, and they seem to be correct. At least, I've never seen any of the Republican backers of this bill even attempt to suggest otherwise. "
To Thesieve:
" I always was under the impression that politics is at the base level about ideas, not racial or ethnic identity. "
Even though Sandor could have used the term "illegal immigration" rather than "immigration", I think everyone here knows that the issue under discussion is the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill which grants amnesty to illegal immigrants; illegal immigrants who don't respect the sovereignty nor the laws of the United States. Illegal immigrants - without regard to national origin, race, or ethnicity.
You used an example from a different thread here on RedState where Jon Sandor wrote:
" For one thing the majority of Hispanics in the US at present support the Democrats. That's an odd thing for pro-lifers to do. "
to support your position. I don't see how that statement on a different thread in any way relates to Jon Sandor's comments on this thread, unless you're saying it's not true.
It seems to me that you're looking for "racial or ethnic identity" where there is none. Those actions on your part do nothing to further the debate about illegal immigration.
Your username needs to be changed. You can either respond here with what you'd like your new username to be, or you can send me an email and let me know in that fashion, and we will be happy to oblige.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
regarding the problem with my user name. I clicked on your User Info and it said Leon H. Wolf is not accepting emails. If you send me an email I'll be able to respond to you.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
and that troublesome "consent of the governed" stuff. There has to be some cultural consensus to arrive at a majority consent, the very essence of our republican democracy. We are now being asked to inject tens of millions of people into our society and res publica who do not share the cultural identity that has evolved here. How can that not lead to changes in the things to which the governed will consent?
As to the "built on the back of immigrants" and all the other "nation of immigrants" cant, it is only so true. Leaving aside agricultural labor which in The South was largely slave and elsewhere was largely family members, early America was noted for both the scarcity and high cost of skilled labor, e.g., see d'Toqueville. Only in the 1850's with the Irish was large scale immigration encouraged. Immigration spiraled during the Civil War, largely through bounty recruitment to the Union Army and the floodgates opened for the spiraling industrialization of America post-war. It is to the eternal discredit of the US generally and the Republican Party specifically that rather than seek to employ the recently freed slaves in that industrialization, they were returned to peonage for a century and the industrial labor was supplied by immigrants. So much so that by the '80s labor had been reduced to a commodity and the nation was torn by social and labor strife for generations, to some extent still is. The societal and economic dislocations caused by the era of massive immigration were such that much of the New Deal Era's social and labor policy was to aimed at improving the lot of the native born in the rural areas generally and The South specifically.
Consequently, there is another argument about the era of massive immigration. We may wonder if the industrialists had not been able to get ever cheaper labor through massive immigration, would not the agricultural diaspora have occurred much earlier and without the draconian social and labor policies of the New Deal that haunt us today?
To me, we are simply seeing another Robber Baron Era; rather than try to use native born labor efficiently and use our wealth and technological advantages, we once again are flooding the labor markets with uneducated, culturally dissimilar immigrants. As was the case in the first half of the 20th Century, there will be a price to pay. And in case nobody noticed, the "contrabands" are still largely in camps, now a century and a half later.
In Vino Veritas
That so many clueless people point to the great waves of immigration in the past and act like that is proof that there are no problems with mass migration.
I suppose anarchist bombings, racial riots, a red scare, and the rise of organized crime were nothing to worry about?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
If this bill passes, most conservative issues will be thrown out the window, and that is the issue. Trying to make a horrible bill better and NOT stand up to vehemently oppose it is wrong. That is the problem with Kyl. Legislation takes compromise, but this bill does not help most AMERICAN CITIZENS, Republican or Democrat. This bill helps the rich, big business, Catholic Churches and ilegals. Minorities, unions won't be helped (other than more entitlements) because wages will stay low based on competition, and if the borders aren't enforced then business go back to hiring illegals and all we did was allow 20 million plus to vote. The middle calss, or what is left, will just end of paying for all of this in a massive tax hike which will be inevitable. If you take the compassion of the debate (which is how they try to sell it), there is not a single reason this bill makes sense.
If this bill passes, I am strongly in favor of taking to task the people in favor of this bill. Unlike abortion, which can be changed with enough support, WE will have to live with the consequences of this bill forever.
I supported him with money and time. He ran against a god-awful Democrat operative that is a multi-millionaire real-estate developer. Jim Peterson was thought to have a good chance against Kyl. Fortunately, he is such an inarticulate, phony, flip-flopping buffoon, he spoiled his own chances.
So, all of you Kyl bashers, would prefer him to Kyl? John Kyl is an honorable man. I COMPLETELY disagree with him on this legislation. I sure would rather work with him than a damn Democrat. Like it or not (I don't) outspoken, "hard" conservatives will have a tough time getting elected these days in AZ. Ask my former representative who I also worked to re-elect, J.D. Hayworth.
You just cannot throw excellent Republicans under the bus because they are wrong on an issue when they are good and decent people willing to listen.
The danger in running someone in the primary that gets the nomination would likely get TROUNCED in the general in many instances.
BTW, I've lived in AZ for 40 years; moved here not too many years after Goldwater ran for President. In fact, he voted in my precinct and I stood in line right behind him and his first wife, Peggy, the first time I ever voted.
As a footnote, remember Barry Goldwater's position on abortion in 1992? I guess nobody's perfect.
A teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of wine and you get a barrel of sewage.
A teaspoon of wine in a barrel of sewage and you still have a barrel of sewage.
Kyl has poured a few teaspoons of wine into a barrel of sewage and some--Kyl, McCain, etc.--are telling us it is now a tolerable table wine.
What good is supporting "good, conservative" Republicans if there will be no party left to vote for--especially if those "good, conservative" Republicans were the reason no party will be left?
Or are we to take it on blind faith that Hispanic voters will reward the Republican party for this amnesty? Like they did after the last amnesty? Kinda like how the seniors have started voting en mass for Republicans since the Prescription Drug Bill?
You don't trade principles for votes--you'll end up with neither.
What exactly did the pro-amnesty crowd give up in this "bi-partisan compromise?"
Where I'm standing, they didn't give up a thing and "good, conservative" Republicans lent their name to it for a few empty words; gave them cover for nothing. That says they'd rather anger the voters who put them in office than anger Uncle Ted and Johny Mac.
I guess Ken Mehlman said it all when he wrote;
"Reaching out to Hispanics is critical to our future. The fastest-growing, and most conservative, segment of the population is natural Republicans. The question is whether we will reach out and welcome these new voters into our ranks. While I don't yet speak Spanish, there is one phrase I memorized as Republican National Committee chairman: "Mi partido es su partido." ("My party is your party.")"
Does that mean we all have to learn Spanish now?
If Republicans are nominating principled men, then lobbying them once in office will not often work, because the positions these men take will often be deep rooted and well thought out. At the very least, their positions on important issues should be well thought out, after having been exposed to all the arguments, and all the facts.
They are who they are, they believe what they believe, and barring new facts, they're going to keep fighting for the same things.
If we assume Senator Kyl is a principled man, who is well-read on this subject, and has thought hard about it before coming to his positions, then the only way to influence immigration policy with respect to his vote is to oust him from office.
The only question is whether this issue is that important, not whether he's a good man, not whether he's conservative, or anything like that. Because if he's wrong on a vital issue, showing how solid he is on most things only makes it more imperative that he be ousted instead of being lobbied.
Run like Reagan!
To the extent that this blog post is representative of GOP thinking at its leadership levels, then the party is in for another electoral beating in 08. For many GOP voters, John Kyl has some 'splainin to do-- and what better forum than a primary? The danger to the GOP is that many voters may well conclude, as the author urges, that they are in "the wrong party," and will vote accordingly in the general.
we keep voting to win regardless of the consequences. Maybe it's time we start voting for people who ARE conservative and will fight to spread it. The messengers stink, most Americans lean right, yet these guys run left at every turn other than war and taxes. They won't be 100% perfect, but show character, that's why they're elected. Stop caving and push back and CONVICE people that going the other way is better. This party refuses to articulate a message and spell out why it is better. The American public has no idea about many issues because they don't explore, they learn only by what the media tells them. The party needs leadership.... NOW.
Kyl's problem, along with Graham and others is that the bill rewards breaking the law, moreover promotes it among other problems. He could have easily just sat on the sidelines and not put his name on it. Endorsing a horrible bill by saying I tried to make it better is a poor platform to run on.
I've read several times lately that Jon Kyl has no intention of running for another term in the Senate. I don't think anybody needs to worry about trying to throw him under the bus because he is going to voluntarily step down.
From my perspective: good riddance! The Republican Party has the power to stop this bill but it appears that instead the leadership is lining up to pass it. If that happens you won't need to worry about being in the same voting coalition with me because I'll be out of here and on a mission to defeat Republican incumbants.
I have served in the U.S. Army and I have done 26 years as police supervisor in Southern California. I have contributed to the RNC for the last 20 years and to the party's nominee for longer than that. Leon says "don't let the door hit me in the ass when I leave"...Fine, I am gone if this bill passes, I will stay home or I will vote the Constitution party...But voting for the "lesser of two evils" has screwed this country. We have gotten "No Child Left Behind", "Medicare Rx" and now thanks to Jorge Arbusto, anywhere from 20 to 50 million new voters/ or people entitled to benefits.
I am sick and tired of the leadership of this party taking me and people like me "for granted". The attitude of the "Leon Wolfs '" of this party, is that when push comes to shove - the base will hold its collective nose and vote Republicans because the Democrats are SOOOO bad. Well when the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with Teddy Kennedy to get their legislation through, that ought to scream to our leadership what is the difference between us and them??? If Teddy Kennedy supports it, the Republican BASE probably won't, but leadership could CARE LESS, cause "we have no where else to go"....Ba Bye....We don't need you Democrat lite so-called Republicans..
Republican since Goldwater...disgusted with RINOs
John Kyl LIED to Arizonans. Now, the president is out there doing his usual my way or the highway BS and criticizing people who don't like this flawed legislation
IMO, this bill won't kill the GOP. It is already dead. This bill will be the final nails in the coffin.
It seems last year everyone was a RINO. I got tons of email on them Even Pence was a RINO at one time. Many of these people that are called RINOS have great ACU rankings. I remember the deabte over the Dubai Terminal lease deal. Not one of our finest momenets.Especially when our military was begging us to hod off not shut down debate and have discussion on this matter. THe "base" whoever they are are said heck no. We had American businessmen on planes to coemtalk to congress and the whole thing gets hooked up with a Supplemnetal for the troops. Not our best moment. I was told the "base" would flee then too.
My problems with the "base" is partly because I am not sure those voices that proclaim that are really the base.. THe "base" has gotten 60 to 70 percent of what they want is but often spits it back as insuffucient. Well that is kinda of sad.
I have spent many of a hot summer in this conservative state going door ot door campaigning. I found out something shocking. A good many people are not very conservative Republicans. THey lean our way and in fact like us more. But they have some differences. We got to get these votes too to get that 60 percent. Get the 60 and then fight for the other 40 tomorrow this is how it works
You didn't say it, but I gather you don't live in a border state? This is not just about "Mexicans"though, its about illegal aliens and OUT of Control legal immigration. I was a police officer in Southern California for over 26 years...when I left the city where I worked more than 56% of the population was foreign born. 3 out of 5 city councilmen were born in Russia. In my city, more people were on government assistance than any other city in California...More people flew foreign flags than flew the American people...English was not spoken in many of the stores, there was Korean, there was Armenian, there was Spanish, there were a total of 56 languages spoken in the elementary school system.
Now many of these were Visa overstays, but there was ZERO, ZIP, NADA enforcement because Glendale, CA is a sanctuary city. "Any police officer" notifying ICE of an arrestees immigration status "will be fired" city management has stated. (Not that it mattered) As ICE refused to come pick up arrestees that were here illegally. That American city is no longer an "American" city. That is happening all over the BORDER Region and sanctuary cities nationwide...
LSU sportsfan...Bush works with Kennedy and you think this is the core of the Republican party? ...I agree with you, thats why I am gone from the Repub party of McKennedy, Graham and Arbusto.
Republican since Goldwater...disgusted with RINOs...
Conservatives and Republicans have separate goals.
Conservatives want the government to support, enact, and execute certain policies.
Republicans want to win elections. Republicans achieve their goal by supporting, enacting, and executing policies that they hope will satisfy enough people to get them elected, or promising to do so.
When Republicans fail to support, enact, and execute policies that conservatives feel very strongly about, conservatives will either:
1) sigh and keep voting Republican because they're better than Democrat;
2) become upset and look for third-party candidates that seem better than Republicans;
3) become upset and sit home, convinced that no party represents their interests;
4) become upset and try to remove the offending Republicans from the government to replace them with candidates they feel more comfortable with,
For this next election, at least, I'm betting on # 2, 3, and 4.
I get the feeling from Mr. Wolf's posted article that he's saying "to hell with conservatives". I also get the feeling from the comments that conservatives are saying "to hell with Republicans". Not a very happy situation.
Conservatives want the government to support, enact, and execute certain policies.
Which you accomplish, in a representative democracy, how? By electing the most conservative people you can, no? If you work to defeat the very most conservative people in public office, how does this get you closer to your policies?
As to sitting home, etc...were you happy with the 2006 elections? Would you like more of that? It can be arranged, you know.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
" Not a very happy situation. "
I'm certainly not looking forward to the fallout from this bill - if it passes. I'll be happy to put it in the past without another thought - if it doesn't pass.
You are arguing that we should support those who are pushing a bill that will lead to the long term destruction of the Republican Party.
Electing Republicans who favor this bill is like electing a saboteur. Maybe an unwitting one. Maybe one with good intentions. But a saboteur nevertheless.
Don't try to wrap your position in the "lesser of two evils" argument, because it assumes you know which is which. And that is a very debatable point. Passage of this bill tied to Republicans is far more dangerous to the Republican Party than a few less Republicans who haven't figured that out.
I still haven't figured out the political strategy here among the "kill the bill" at all cost folks.
It seems like we are fighting to get good stuff in a bill that is needed. It is also apparent to me that if we don't get HOuse GOP folks to fight for much of the stuff in the Senate bill we might have something far more liberal pass. That is a real concern. YEt it is the conservatives that are to blame.
I hear politcs over principles how horrible. YEt I am hearing hey we don't care if its a bad bill the liberals get passed and of course it would be 180 degrees from what we watn and rant against but hey we can use that against the DEMS. COnfusing to say the least,
I think the people on the right that oppose this bill need to remember we had this debate in the UTah Primary last year. The Comprehensive guys won. Randy Graff, former minuteman, who made this the issue lost. That seat was Republican. Hayworth in Arizona lost against a comprehensive immigration Dem in Arizona. This issue did not moblize the forces for Santorum did it? I could mention a lot more GOP folks that won on Comprehensive reform and those that opposed it lost. IN effect I think it is time that people realize that are against the BUsh plan that perhaps you are not the only ones in the room with views. We see this in various polls.
All I see is that we lost a huge percentage of the hispanic vote in 2006 that has been trending our way. Who can blame them. Rush says we are "pandering to hispanics". Every time I hear democrats say that the GOP "panders to the religious right" I get offended and very uspest. It is like my ideas are not worth consulting. What do people expect
IN the end just like the the WSJ piece say today we are a party that is a a Cauldron of debate. That is good and the left doesn't have it. It is we the GOP that is dealing with this important issue. We are fighting each other over it. That is good too. We are the party of ideas and it gets messy at times. But that is why I am a Republican and not a Dem.
This bill is not needed. What is needed is to enforce laws we already have on the books. If they need to be revised, revise them. Close the loopholes. Enforce the laws we have. Let the properly cleared legal immigrants in. Keep the illegal immigrants out.
It's really so obvious. I speak with a lot of Republicans and conservatives on a daily basis and I have run across almost none who start out the conversation with "gosh, we really need to get a comprehensive reform bill passed". It's just a planted axiom by the open borders crowd. Another example of the intellectual dishonesty that they employ in making their 'case'.
The Hispanic vote has not been "trending our way". Bush bamboozelled a number of them to support him because he promised them amnesty, and dammit he is a man of his word, he is working hard like hell to give it to them.
Lets think this out in a historic framework shall we? We know the following,
(1) most illegals are poor
(2) most are under educated even by Mexican standards
(3) they come from a nation which taught them socialism was great
(4) they come form a nation that teaches them gringos are bad.
(5) Since the early 1800's the Democratic party has always been the natural home to poor, uneducated, and the recent immigrants.
You are deluding yourself to think that letting more people in, and giving them some sort of legal status is going to be a boon of any type for conservatives.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
millions of peasants screaming for justice while their "betters" laugh in their face. At least it feels that way to me.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Perhaps you narrative as to what policies win and lose could be sold to somewhat unthinking persons but I must point out a certain pro-amnesty fellow who lost, rather than won,--as you pretend is the formula for success: Mike Dewine. Also, did not John Kyl--in the same state as JD--campaign as a pro-enforcement candidate?
Further, race by race analysis dispels the "lost because he supported enforcement first" myth.
Like I said before: just because we got a few teaspoons of wine in the barrel of sewage does not make it any better: it is still sewage.
60% of what we want? Even if that's true, isn't the point being of what 60%? 1)How about secure the border first. 2) Enforce hiring practices while this goes on 3) See how things go with 1&2 before going forward.
There is compromise, how about this, if you complete 1&2, you can think about allowing them to work, but how about their punishment is NEVER to be allowed to vote, be eligible for NO benefits other than social security that they paid taxes for, AND pay a fine. The least that should happen for illegal immigration is losing what is supposed to be the biggest privalage in this country, A VOTE.
I don't love this idea, but ideas like this at least become more paletable. Why should illegals complain about losing a chance to vote, they got to be for up to 20 years illegally.
For those of you who talk about 1910 immigration, there were no social services and everyone was on their own to survive. Prior to Teddy's 1965 bill, people were vouched for and the person who brought them in had to pay for them, all much different circumstances than today.
should be defeated in 2008. If that means that some otherwise conservatives like Kyl go down, so be it. Don't blame conservatives, blame Kyl. He is the one who should have been both smarter and more principled.
Oh, and isn't he part of the team that promised us a fence last year? What's he done about our fence?
This is not a "compromise" bill, it is a complete sellout to Amnesty. Why? Because the first step in the bill is legalization for everyone who says they were here before January 1, 2007. They won't be citizens, but they will be legal. They can't be deported. They will be lined up for benefits. No fine, no English, no nothin. Legal on day one. Every freakin one of them. Read it. Think. That's what it says.
Oh and anyone that thinks that the govt is going to do "criminal background checks" on 13 million people in 24 hours deserves a place at the head of the line to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Work against Kyl? He's earned our contempt for this act of treachery. This is not a difference of opinion, it's a calculated attempt to sneak a major piece of legislation in by misrepresentation and subterfuge. You think we will miss someone who operates like that? I don't. And yeah, I used to be a strong Kyl supporter.
Don't let the front door hit you on the backside, buddy. Best of luck organizing a movement to get those 400,000 signatures.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Since you don't want me in your voting coalition, maybe you and the minority of Republicans who are pushing for open borders and amnesty should form your own.
Your rhetorical flourish is a double edged sword.
You manage to get your 400,000 signatures, or mount a campaign against Kyl, McCain, or any other traitors to the whole of humanity that gets more than 30% in a primary election, and you'll have a valid point, here. Otherwise, you might want to draw some inferences from the resounding failure of the party to cast Jon Kyl and the rest of us traitors aside about where you stand.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
"Jon Kyl and the rest of us traitors"
I never called anyone a traitor in any of my posts. It was you who presumptiously said you didn't want me in your voting coalition, and you who snootily tried to push me out the door. All the while accusing conservatives of dividing the party. Now you raise "traitor" and apply it to yourself. Was that an attempt to wave a red herring?
You seem to be losing it. How about getting around to some of the points I raised on the bill?
All the comments I've received today have sort of run together, and I seem to have lost the... ah... nuance involved in your comments. I assure you that I am very much calm and rational at this point (a dispassionate observer who read through the comments here would no doubt have some interesting observations about who is "losing it" in this particular debate). I had assumed that it was a given that the Republican Party was totally ignoring those with your point of view - I've heard it roughly 3 billion times in the last week. If you think you can change that and wrest control of the party away, be my guest and try it.
Incidentally, when you have neither the control of the party nor the numbers to *assume* control of the party, I find that this approach tends to work better in the long run, but you all let me know how your approach works out in the end.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
your task of clearing the room of those who disagree with you will indeed be a challenging one.
OK, I've given up trying to get you to address my stated concerns about the bill itself. You seem more interested in word play than substance. Have a great evening in your own personal voting coalition.
Of the number of people whose first choice in a Presidential election is Sam Brownback with the number of people who think that Jon Kyl should be defeated in a primary/recalled will stand as your self-discrediting legacy in this thread, then.
Like I said, are Ensign and Martinez going to take up the charge to oust Kyl? Randy Pullen? No? Sounds like the Party isn't exactly going your way. If you think you can come and *take* it, you're welcome to try. Otherwise, like I said, frontdoors and backsides.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
...it is my suggestion that you either: accept that the Contributors to this site are forthcoming about why they write as they do, or; find another site to read.
This is merely a suggestion, but you'll probably be happier in the long run if you pick one or the other.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Your task of knocking off Kyl in 2008 is even harder than Leon makes it out to be since he's all set in office till January 2013.
But that ignores the fact that quite a few of them are calling for an effort to get 400,000 petitions and have a recall election.
Which strikes me as a *great* idea.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
I am not a part of any recall attempt in AZ; that's just another "characteristic" that was assigned to me in an attempt by Mr. Wolf to avoid addressing the problems of the Amnesty Bill itself.
You have another way to defeat Jon Kyl in 2008, then? That was apparently my bad for assuming that Jon Kyl would serve until 2012 unless he got recalled. Clearly, I missed some third option that's out there - I've never been very long on imagination.
Also, I don't need to obfuscate to avoid discussing the problems with this immigration bill, as the *point* of this thread isn't "discuss whether you think the immigration bill is good or bad," but rather, "assuming arguendo that the immigration bill is bad, does Jon Kyl deserve to get tossed for it?"
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
As there is no right of recall in the constitution for federal officials. Kyll would have to be expelled. (not going to happen)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Isn't recall of a U.S. Senator or Representative impossible? The "Recall Kyl" signs just symbolic rhetoric?
I could only find contradictory claims from non-authoritative sources on a web search, but my understanding of the Constitution is that only the U.S. Senate itself has the power to remove a Senator from office. State recall laws can't apply to federal offices.
Does anybody have an authoritative source confirming or contradicting my understanding?
"The people in the first group, the ones described in Mr. Bluey's piece, can take a hike as far as I'm concerned, and I won't shed a tear over their loss."
Two points if I might.
One. Those you are referring to in the above statement may just be the margin your party needs to hold/capture some seats. Their leaving your party leaves you absent a very critical necessity for winning elections, ie. numbers. You may not shed a tear over their leaving, but you will shed a tear over the consequences.
Two. If you don't live in Arizona ,as I do, then you do not cast a vote for John Kyle. Whether he stands or falls is determined by those of us here in his state and it is really inconsequential what you living in any other state thinks of him. He is elected to represent Arizona's electorate and it's them that he had better be listening to. And belive me, he's getting an ear full right about now. His fate is in our hands, not yours. Sleep well!
.