Saturday, May 19, 2007

2008, Republican Backbone & Third Party Stupidity

This article from Riehl World View says better than I what I have felt for many years now, except for the third party idea that pops up when conservatives are feeling especially aggrieved.

Third party slates hurt Republicans (especially Conservatives) every single time. Do the history, do the math and it will tell you we get screwed. I am still hoping someday to run into Perot so I can look down on his pointy little head and ask him how his chart schtick is working for him now. "Ross for Boss", know what I mean?

The current immigration bill is just the symptom of the disease in the Republican Party. The disease is political deafness by party leaders and the esconsed politicians in their comfy seats in the clouds. The party cannot listen to their base anymore because they do not know who, what, or where their base is. That is how out of touch they are. The "Got a suburb? Send the direct mail, the TV, radio and door-to-door workers there and, viola, we win" advice that consultant/party "experts" have been handing out is wasting not just money, but hearts and minds. Oh, and elections.

To wit:

A Republican Landslide In The Making
Historically, the term landslide has meant a major victory by one political party over another. Republicans appear to want to re-define the term by embracing a position on immigration likely to cause the conservative land they've been trampling over for decades to give way.

Some have convinced themselves that the measure represents a good trade, i.e. amnesty for 12 million (which they privately acknowledge is the case) in exchange for beefed -up enforcement including a worker-verification system (assuming government can effectively design one with Democrats refusing to agree to data-sharing among relevant agencies), and an end to chain migration at some point in the future, i.e. when the big backlog on extended family members waiting for green cards is cleared up.

In the face of what became the Reagan compromise on immigration in the eighties, a compromise which produced nothing at all as regards managing immigration or the border, why some insist on trying to put a positive spin on this boggles the mind. All I can guess is that they've given up on any chance for serious change and are all too happy to go along for a ride that looks more like a death spiral for Republicans to

Republicans were given a wake up call in 2006; they've opted to hit snooze. Were this truly a fringe issue, I'd likely accept any alleged wisdom in the move. But I don't believe it is a fringe issue. The majority of Americans appreciate a respect for law and order and want our borders controlled. The winning strategy debated too much too long ago, was, border security first and then a potential accommodation for existent illegals. That would ensure getting action from Washington on this issue for a change.

Republicans appear to have rejected that wisdom, opting for an ineffective compromise, instead. Fine. Let the Republicans tout their ineffectiveness in some next election. I'll be looking for a slate of third party candidates willing to do
what it takes to get a handle on the genuine problems facing America. Clearly
that isn't something the current Republican Party is willing to do.

Despite their '06 rejection, they're content to give us more of the same. Unfortunately, that isn't even close to what America needs. Is this
what McCain touted in the recent debate? No wonder his candidacy has been DOA.

Immigration reform doesn't just mean 12 million new votes for the Demos, it probably means 12 points leaving, or at least not caring anymore for, the GOP.

By showing some Conservative/Republican backbone starting now, even with another loss in 2008, the GOP could be well on its way to rebuilding trust with the people which will translate into victory down the road.

Just maybe, by immediately renting a pair and showing some backbone, the GOP could win in 2008. If it doesn't start with immigration we can plan on Alec Baldwin threatening to move back to America in 2008 and a Democrat in the White House.

May 19, 1910

President Warren Harding signs a restrictive immigration quota act which limits yearly immigration to a maximum of 3 percent of any nationality’s numbers in 1910.

A 1924 act reduced the limit to 2 percent of the number in 1890.
What is the 2007 percentage, 103 percent?

Here is the rope you asked for America

I have stated many times that Democrat/Progressives want open borders. That they do not care about US sovereignty and could care less about inter-racial struggles brought on by open immigration and the now proposed amnesty bill in the Senate is not a well kept secret.

Here is a great synopsis of the first step in their plan.

Cui Bono? [Mark Krikorian]
When Limbaugh calls the Kyl-Bush-Kennedy amnesty the "The Comprehensive
Destroy-the-Republican-Party Act," he's repeating what Democrats have been
saying for some time:

To get a citizenship bill through Congress, President
Bush and the Democrats probably need to convert a large bloc of anti-immigration Republican members, perhaps 40 in the House and 20 in the Senate. "Somehow,"
said a Democrat lawmaker who is trying to build Republican support, "we have to
convince them that voting for comprehensive reform does not amount to
'enfranchising their defeat,' " a reference to the likelihood that two of every
three new Latino voters would cast Democratic ballots. "Our problem," he
admitted, "is that we are hoping that the legislation will build the Democratic
electorate." ("Border Politics," National Journal, Feb. 10, 2007)

"As the number of legal Hispanics increases, the number of Democratic votes increases as well. ... Taking immigration off the table as a red-meat issue for conservative Republicans would be very helpful in a presidential year." (Democratic "insiders", National Journal Insiders Poll, April 14, 2007)

Top Democratic leaders and activists see Hispanic migration as a long-term opportunity for the party. The arrival of additional immigrant workers is "bad for blue-collars," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told National Journal late last year. But immigrants can help elect Democratic majorities, and "if [a Democratic Congress] were to significantly strengthen unions, then you would offset the negative effect on the income of workers," he said. ("Immigration Economics," National Journal, May 12, 2007)
05/18 03:45 PM

I must admit that I am stunned that Republicans would vote for this, even given their history of misreading campaign issues, but I am also stunned that all Americans are not up in arms over this illegal, immoral and destructive action against our country.