Redstate

I agree with you that he could likely win the Republican nomination, but he would get crushed in a general election.

That is a great site you reference. That will be very helpful when I vote again!

Since Reagan gave us amnesty back in the 80s, then I would assume, yes, that is how he would feel. In fact, Brownback looks like he'd be to the right of where Reagan was on this issue.

--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"

Maybe this warrants a discussion of its own. What's the story on comparing these?

Was 1986 intended as a one-time shot, draw a line in the sand, etc.? Or was 1986 just a matter of Reagan being too soft?

Does 2006 prove that what was tried in 1986 can never work? What would Reagan be saying now?
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

enforcement was to happen and it simply did not.

"It ain't over till it's over"
Yoggi Berra

It was an activist Congress that refused to provide enforcement and they were helped by Bush 1 and Clinton.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

the fence will never get built under this Congress.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

Brownback is no Buchanan. On immigration and life issues, he is a Reaganite: pro-life, and pro-immigration. But on spending, he is tainted as a Senator who never stood up to the porkfest.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I have also been puzzled by Buchanan hardline on immigration. Can someone honestly look me in the eyes and tell me they think Jesus would support building a wall to keep the poor out of this country?

- left-wing, right-wing, in-tandem, shadowy conspiracy ring leader

To avoid using Christ's name with political conservatives as if we're your caricatures of George Bush. Are we clear?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I wasn't speaking about political conservatives. I was talking about Pat Buchanan.. a prominent Christian supporting building a giant a wall to keep the poor people out. I don't think I'm making caricature out of anyone. To me the leader of his faith (Jesus), would contradict his policy stance on immigration.

Further, I fail to see how that has the slightest thing to do with George Bush. That's all. I must have hit a nerve, jeez.

- left-wing, right-wing, in-tandem, shadowy conspiracy ring leader

He's a prominent former Presidental candidate. Speaks for himself, not the faith.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I think its exceptionally clear that Buchanun is a devote Christian. A Christian who is a Presidental candidate is clearly a prominent Christian.

Really the reason I posted to begin with was to see if anyone would counter the original statement. Is there any good arguments that Jesus WOULD support a wall on the border?

- left-wing, right-wing, in-tandem, shadowy conspiracy ring leader

that would support the idea that Jesus would be in favor of breaking federal immigration law to get into the US. He was big on "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", and while the specific quote dealt with money it's not a big jump to assume He would be opposed to breaking laws that did not affect one's ability to worship God.

Given that people should respect and follow the law, if people will not follow the law of their own free will then the state should have the right to effect measures to enforce the laws not being followed. Since we're talking about illegal immigration, there are a number of enforcement methods available. I'll mention two. First, we could mine the Mexican border with Claymores and similar fun devices. Second, we could build a wall to inhibit people from crossing. I think Jesus would prefer the wall.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

By the way, I did some more research and actually you were right about Buchanan. He really is not whoever I was thinking he was. I thought he was part of the Christian Coalition and a bit more so outspoken about his faith. So, I'm sorry about that.

Back to the "Jesus Immigration Program," though, I believe what you would find him a strong proponent on is taking in the poor and weak. Basically, a very comprehensive amnesty program. Not building a wall to keep them out. He was always preaching about welcoming the poor and needy. I think building a wall to keep them from even getting jobs would be the antonymn of his teachings. I think your logic falls under the category of a false dichotomy. It was pretty good though for a hard to make argument. :)

I do however agree with you that if Jesus was preaching TO the immigrants he would tell them to respect the laws of the nation they were going to and NOT illegally immigrate.

- left-wing, right-wing, in-tandem, shadowy conspiracy ring leader

a hard to make argument at all.

Why in the world would you think that Jesus would support, or even care about, an amnesty program? This is not about "welcoming the poor and needy". That is just feel-good drivel. Under that concept, we should be sending 747's to the Sudan because being rich in Sudan makes the poverty in Mexico look pretty good.

Jesus did say we would always have the poor. He also encourages us to care for the less fortunate - note, not the poor but the less fortunate. That makes care of others the responsibility of everyone.

Bottom line, if Mexico has people who are poor and weak the first line of help for those people is Mexicans who are better off. Next comes the Mexican government. The US government is nowhere in the mix. I know of several churches here in Phoenix who do outreach programs in Mexico.

I have no problem helping the poor. I have a huge problem with the idea that Mexicans have some sort of entitlement to US citizenship. And by the way, I would eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to everyone born here UNLESS their parents are here legally.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

"It ain't over till it's over"
Yoggi Berra

The Unitarian King Jimmy Carter Version of The New Testament doesn't encourage the lay-reading of the verse "Render unto Caesar..." until the week before April 15.

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

stop supporting the right to stick a fork in a baby's head, I'll care what they have to say about the teachings of Jesus.

theology, learn some first. Jesus would have been for the people following the law of the land.

"It ain't over till it's over"
Yoggi Berra

I think you are all referring to the apocryphal gospels here. The ones in which Jesus, after the resurrection, gives up preaching to people as individuals, goes to Rome and pursues a political career becoming, iirc, first a Senator and then a Consul.

I realise there is still considerable debate about his programme - some claiming he launched Rome's New Deal and others that he was all for extending the Empire and converting the heathens. But, hey, maybe this is not the best place to have that debate.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Not to put too fine a point on it, but throwing the "what would Jesus do" line around here is a fast way to account deactivation.

You continued the thread while I was gone. It's the day before Thanksgiving, so I'm going to give you a one-time pardon. It doesn't happen again; are we clear?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

forced the argument. I'll stop now.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

More than charisma and acting abilities, President Reagan was able to commuicate the conservative message because he actually believed in it. It took him a while to come around on some things, like abortion, but by the time he ran for President, he believed in a strong national defence, traditional values, and limited government. That made the rest easy.

Frankly, that actual belief in the conservative message is sorely lacking in the current field. Rudy doesn´t get it and says so. McCain now claims to believe in the conservative message, but his career shows otherwise. Romney is now saying essentially that he needed to abandon his deeply, incredibly well-hidden, principles to get elected. Sen. Brownback, however, has established a solid conservative voting record and has been a consistent advocate of conservative causes both publicly and behind the scenes. As such, he will serve as an effective spokesman for the movement and, at least in my opinion, a stronger Presidential candidate than anyone else currently running.

Although I think that Senator Brownback is very much a “Reagan conservative” – someone who talks the talk about limited government and then proceeds to vote for (or in Reagan’s case sign into law) ever increasing levels of government spending and new big government programs like Medicare Part D, farm subsidies, and the like. That he knows how to toss out red meat to social con voters who care more about symbolic acts like voting for a constitutional amendment that never had to vote to pass doesn’t impress me at all.

At this point in time, the only candidates that are acceptable would be a governor from outside Washington or a member of Congress with solid fiscal conservative credentials like McCain or Colburn.

BLAM

The prayer of Penitent Thomas: O Lord, send us intelligent trolls. Amen.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

McCain, Guiliani, and Brownback all have the same general position on immigration. My guess is Tancredo will run so the issue gets talked about and he will be the Al Sharpton of the R primary. He will have no chance but wants to be heard. Like Sharpton, he will have no actual say in what happens after the election.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

about capitalisation in headlines and then write the monstrosity 'to who?'. Doesn't anyone use 'whom' any more?

Join The Pedants' Revolt!

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

This is the sort of thing up with which we must constantly put.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

`

What's this here word "whom," I ain't never heard of it befour?

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I came to see what intelligent conservatives are saying.

But I stayed for the grammar.

I may be a leftist, but the feds will have to pry English's accusative pronouns from my cold, dead fingers.

"Whom" is, of course, the same form as the accusative, however "to whom" is dative. Dative and ablative forms in English usually follow the accusative, as does the genitive when constructed using "of" rather than the "s" form, thus "of whom" as an alternative to "whose".

Now, open your Latin text books on page CCLXVI, and we can continue the lesson . . .

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Darn it. You're right. I was thinking of the incredibly annoying MySpace category "Who I'd like to meet".

And so that I'm not justly accused of contributing only sauce and no substance, I'd just say that I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Dole's run in 1996. Not that there's any rule against two Kansans being the nominee within 12 years, but it does seem to be a large honor for an electorally-small state. The Dems did this with Massachusetts (88 and 04), and it worked out so well for them...

Now, I must say that "who" and "whom" is one of my pet peeves, and I admire QLang for teaching the lesson, but in general,

Excessive attention to spelling, etc is the hobgoblin of small minds

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

I still don't see a ton of evidence that people vote on immigration, especially in presidential primaries.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

conservatism as a prelude to its demise. We are the party of less government, individual responsibilities, and liberty. By the same token, we are the party of Life. Ronald Reagan embraced both with a passion, and a candidate who claims to be a "Ronald Reagan" conservative does the same.

There is no Ronald Reagan in the race or thinking about this race.

I think it is a big mistake to underestimate Romney.

Liberal thinking, if followed, will eventually be the demise of America.

Romney is already cornering the anti-McCain, anti-Guiliani niche.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

that he is for real in opposing abortion if he wants to impact Brownback's following. They don't take lightly to abortion flip-flops, so it will be a near impossible sell without some help.

I think that would be a better position for him- and I'd prefer Brownback as VP instead of Huckabee, although Huckabee comes from a more important state in the electoral college...

Selecting Brownback as VP would particularly help Romney burnish his social conservative credentials.

The only think that bringing up Keating Five will accomplish is providing Senator McCain with a chance to point out is that since then he has been one of the most ardent supporters of “clean government” since then – a point which earns him immense popularity with independent voters.

How about Over-reaching Government. Or Government without a First Amendment?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Which is probably why you didn’t see too many conservatives insisting on “staying home” in 2004 when the President who signed the BCFRA in law ran for reelection.

The funny thing is I was originally a Bush supporter in 2006 precisely because I opposed McCain on the BCFRA and thought that there weren’t too many too many other differences between them other than Bush said he would veto the bill if it came to his desk. Once Bush in fact signed into law, I realized that I was mistaken in my assessment that there weren’t too many differences between the two and the last six years have taught me that:

1) McCain was in fact a more ardent supporter of entitlement reform than Bush in 2000 and not only stayed a solid supporter of Social Security reform in 2004 but voted against Medicare Part D.

2) Bush talked the talk about demanding that Congress not “overspend” but much like Reagan he signed ever increasing levels of government spending into law while McCain voted against them.

3) On foreign policy McCain was to Bush’s right in being willing to commit US assets to make sure that we actually win the wars we fight (even ones that many Republicans disagreed with like Kosovo).

4) On tax cuts, McCain thought it was more important to fix the entitlement mess than it was to offer temporary tax cuts while overspending – thereby merely passing the tax burden on to the next generation.

Which leaves us with exactly – that McCain favors a guest worker program as part of immigration reform – like Bush? That he sponsored the BCFRA – which Bush signed into law? That he recognizes that global climate change is real – like the Bush administration has said repeatedly?

Seriously if I had a time machine and could go back to 2000, I would work my @$$ off to make John McCain our nominee in 2000 over George W Bush. He would have probably wiped the floor with the Sore-Loserman ticket and we would have had the benefit of a Republican Congress but with a President who wasn’t afraid to wield his veto pen, who would have pushed for entitlement reform over temporary tax cuts and pork-barrel spending, been willing to commit the assets that we need to commit to win the GWOT and communicated day and night with the American people that we are at war and need to be committed to win.

Do not refer to any wing of the Republican Party as the "theocracy wing." Are we clear?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Tell that to all those moderates who have left the Republican party. It's the same thing Democrats have had to come to terms with. When you let your party be defined by a narrow uncompromising faction, moderates who understand that governing requires compromise will jump ship. If you think you can be a major political party without the support of moderates, let me introduce you the the Green Party.

...all those moderates who have left the Republican party.

Name three.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

but they call in to C-SPAN all the time: "Yeah, I was a Republican for 75 years until they started advocating a religious dictatorship." Of course, those callers are often cut short, identified as frauds.

I can name thousands in suburban Philadelphia alone -- voters who don't rigidly define themselves as Republicans or Democrats. How can this not be obvious to you?

Erm, no - it's not obvious at all.

What is obvious is that this election - much like 2000 and 2002 - was decided by a relatively small slice of the electorate who tend to think about politics and policy for about 45-seconds every two years. And I don't think, given the BUSH SUX™ and Culture of Corruption® drumbeat we've been treated to over the last 24-months, there is much of anything anyone could have done to persuade those "moderates" to keep pulling the GOP lever.

2004 was different because the GOTV machine turned-out numbers sufficient to marginalize these “voters” where it counts. The "machine" took a vacation this year and as a result we lost some marginal seats and some others we had little reason to hope we could keep in perpetuity (see CT-2 for example).

I also happen to think the particular region you're talking about had some challenges (COUGHmistressCOUGHchokingCOUGH) for our side that you are dismissing because it's convenient for you. And by the way, almost none of the folks who lost in that area (or nationwide, for that matter) were charter members in the Knights Templar, Incorporated's Vast Conspiracy to Institute Medieval Christian Law™ wing of the GOP, were they.

Funny, that.

Try again. Or don't. Your call. But here's a hint...

...voters who don't rigidly define themselves as Republicans or Democrats

In most elections, these are rigidly defined as "non-voters", so I'll take a pass on counting on their votes going forward if it's all the same to you.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Re: 2004 was different because the GOTV machine turned-out numbers sufficient to marginalize these “voters” where it counts.

You are wrong about this. In 2004 the GOP captured most of the voters you mention disparagingly, and that is why the GOP enjoyed such a splendid win. This year the GOP lost them., and all the GOtV effort in the world cannot turn out voters who are lost (on non-existent). Want to win 2008? Figure out how to get these folks back on board.

Calling any wing of the Republican Party "theocrats" or the equivalent is a way of telling me you don't want to post here any more. I didn't leave my comment to argue, but to warn.

Do we have mutual comprehension now?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Okay, then how about the "religiously-driven wing of the party"? Is that considered PC enough? I had high hopes that this wasn't a Daily Kos-like community.

Thomas has the power to enforce the rules. I don't, but I'll try and explain it to you....

The is NO wing of the Republican Party that wants a theocracy. There are people who happen to be Christians who happen to support the party, but NO ONE is advocating a theocracy. That's KOS and friends' slander and we don't appreciate 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.

Point taken. However, I think it's important to recognize the religious dynamic that the party has become identified with. Religious conservatives can't expect the same uncompromising conviction they have for theology to work as a governing philosophy in a secular society. Too often our leaders are criticized for finding compromised solutions (ie, Gang of 14) rather than going down with the ship for the sake of some unaltering devotion to ideology. While that may have a place in the pulpit, it's not how good government works. I think most sensible people recognize this and will oust the party they think has forgotten this, no matter which party it is.

A) Secular societies may not have a particularly long lifespan. Most of Western Europe is reproducing at well below replacement.

B) We have a governing document that defines us as secular and population with a higher rate of church attendance than any other society near our level of economic or material status.

Perhaps it would be far more accurate to describe the US as a Christian Society with a secular government and a militantly scular, self-selecting intellectual elite.

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

you've probably discovered the plug has been pulled on your account.

Read Thomas' warning again. Then read your snide comment. Contemplate them for a moment and if you think you can continue to post here without getting the last word in when you're warned on your behavior hit the "contact us" button and ask Erick to reinstate you.

If not, that's fine, too.

At least this is one place where Baptist Fundentalists can escape religious bigotry. I campaigned for Pat Robertson in 1988 and am proud of it!

As a lefty reader of RedState, I'd like to ask my lurking brethren: do you really think that imprecations to to "stop smoking that bible" or fantasizing out loud about a Dobson nomination a) raise the level of discourse, and b) won't get you banned eventually? What, precisely, is the point? are you in junior high? ungracious winners? I don't come here to read Thomas tell 7th graders not to throw spitballs, so stop making him.

sigh. *recloaks*

And FWIW, the idiots to whom you refer are not "your brethern". You seem to be able to assemble rational thoughts.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

There are plenty of lefties, lurking and non-lurking, who can tell me to shove it where the sun doesn't shine politely enough that I don't care, and no one else would. That's all we ask, really.

Lurk if you must, and if you think it appropriate; but if you can tell me that I'm so wrong that if I keep going I'll be right, politely, come on in.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

"fanoftheshow" was actually within shooting distance of a polite, well-expressed objection. Almost. Then he/she had to ruin it with the rhetorical raspberry. My objection was on form, not necessarily the germ of the content.

I've only been here a year or so -- and don't tend to join on-line intentional communities in general until I've spent a good long time observing to absorb the social mores. Lurking has a function. And frankly, the rhetorical standards here are high enough that it really makes one want to have one's ducks in a row before diving in as an oppositional commentor.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

However, it's because I want to see him in office. Another dream: A James Dobson recess appointment to the Supreme Court!

... but somehow when a dem does it, it has a bit of a different feel. You get the feeling they're not arguing entirely, shall we say, in good faith. Just going out on a limb here.

"you need to stop smokin' that Bible and get back to reality"

People can have honest disagreements but degrading peoples' religious beliefs is quite another. You should be ashamed of yourself.

But, of course, he went and complained about it elsewhere.

Paul was a candidate for president in '88. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

who actually voted for Ron Paul in '88.

I remember going into the ballot box knowing GHWB didn't need my vote to drive a steak thru Dukakis heart. I didn't trust GHWB to be President, so I voted for Ron.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I served as Ron Paul's travel aide in that 1988 Libertarian Presidential Campaign. Ron and I campaigned in over 40 states from Alaska to Florida. But the liberal media completely ignored us. Ron still came in 3rd, but with only roughly half a million votes.

He's getting a bit up there in age. I'd say at this point, Cong. Jeff Flake would be a much better pick for the libertarian wing of the GOP. Plus, I have a sneaky suspicion that if Ron were to run again, he'd probably run as a Libertarian Party candidate or maybe even Constitution Party.

Other possible libertarian GOP candidates: Fmr. NM Gov. Gary Johnson, Jesse Ventura, Dennis Miller and even Tommy Thompson's brother Ed Thompson.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Huckabee's problem is that same as Sam Brownback's - he's another Big Government Republican who is a Social Conservative.

We need someone who will return us and the brand of the GOP to our roots of Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Freedom as well as a brand of social conservatism that doesn't completely alienate the libertarians.

I think that Mitt Romney is going to be the guy to strike the perfect balance on these issues.

It's my hope that after 8 years of Mitt Romney, Republicans are going to be clamoring for the dual mantle of Reagan and Romney.

Here, Here!

In some ways, I think a Mormon would have an easier time running as a Democrat. LDS is a curios religion with many beliefs that will be a challenge for some on the religious right. I think this could be a very strange nomination.

Seriously if anyone is going to refuse to support a candidate who is right on the issues and has the ability to do the job because he belongs to a different faith, then that person needs to be shown the door.