Is Immigration the issue that will divide the Republicans?

[SirFozzie]

Watching the melt down in the Republican blogosphere has been.. well.. not fun... but interesting. The hardcore folks seem to be completely dug in on this issue, not willing to give an inch, and the discussion has become increasingly strident, to the point one prominent group blog hoster told his guest bloggers. "Either you agree with me completely on the immigration issue, or I will remove you from the site" (and then doing just that).

Bush seemed to offer a compromise to what would be called his base, by setting up the national guard and to build a fence, but it seems to me like no matter what Bush offered, the second he suggested that they not deport everyone immediately, the door was slammed in his face. One thuggish republican blogger (and in no way shape or form am I saying he reflects even a small percentage of Republicans..) even said "If Germany can deport six million jews without a problem, why can't we do it?")

Is illegal immigration a hardcore issue and could it provide a substantial divide in what was a pretty secure bloc of voters for the Republicans? Will we see a Hispanic backlash against the Republican party the next few elections?

[CamEdwards]

just out of curiousity, what blogger was that? I tend to read my few favorites, and none of them have mentioned this, although I find it somewhat amusing.

The answer to your question is yes, this very well could divide the Republicans, but so could Congressional pork. I'd say there's a lot of disillusioned conservatives out there who are not inclined to vote at this point. I don't think they'll pull the lever for a Democrat, but they very well may stay home.

[CamEdwards]

oh, as to the Hispanic backlash... Hillary's said we need to build a fence and Dean's said illegal immigration is the Dems top priority for November.

[SirFozzie]

it was linked to in the PoliPundit meltdown

[stevew]

The answer to your question is yes, this very well could divide the Republicans, but so could Congressional pork. I'd say there's a lot of disillusioned conservatives out there who are not inclined to vote at this point. I don't think they'll pull the lever for a Democrat, but they very well may stay home.

Yep. I'll probably vote for Lynn Swann this fall, just cause I'm not too keen on Fast Eddie, but honestly, I think I'd like to see some republicans lose elsewhere, just cause they don't get it. I don't think the democrats get it, either, however.

It's time to build a new coalition with the people who want to see a smaller government.

[Bee]

no

[SirFozzie]

Honestly, I'd love to see McCain (the nearly independent McCain of 04, not the one who's cozying up to the Religious right in 06), win the election. I think America would be better off with a moderate at the helm, someone not tied to either wing, but a centrist government

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yes, I believe illegals are an extremely high priority item for likely Republican voters & I don't believe the majority of them are going to be satisifed with the direction things are headed.

In one of the threads on the subject there's a long post by me which details something that might get the majority on board, but the absolute must of whatever "reform" will have to include the removal of all those currently in the country illegally. Anything less isn't going to satisfy, the details of allowing re-entry, work visas, whatever else is, IMO entirely secondary to the desire to see the criminals removed before anything else happens. And I believe that step is the one uncompromisable element, without that then nothing is going to be approved by the majority of the base.

As Cam said, it's not going to cause too many to vote Dem, but it may cause a lot of people not to vote at all (which leads to the same outcome most likely).

[CamEdwards]

That PoliPundit thing is bizarre. Until today, I always thought Lori Byrd WAS PoliPundit. I don't read the site every day, but will read a post every now and then when another blogger links to it. Invariably those posts were Lori's.

[SirFozzie]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50198

Dear Jorge plans to address the nation tonight, a speech wherein he will almost surely attempt to deceive citizens into believing that he does not wish the mass migration from Mexico to continue unabated. He will likely offer some negligible resources for law enforcement and border security – resources which will never materialize – in return for an amnesty program that will grant American citizenship to the Mexican nationals who have helped lower America's wage rates by 16 percent over the last 32 years.

And he will be lying, again, just as he lied when he said: "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it's just not going to work."

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

[CamEdwards]

that column has received a great deal of criticism from across the conservative blogosphere, fwiw.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't know if I've seen anyone on the internet compare himself to the Nazis. What does Godwin's law say about that?

[SackAttack]

Illegal immigration is not my top issue with the Republican Party - although if they fail to do anything about it at this point after acting as though they're finally going to get serious, that would be a pretty significant black mark against them.

Basically, I have enough other issues with the Bush Administration right now that the immigration issue is a net loss for them. Successfully doing something about it isn't going to convince me that I ought to be voting for them as opposed to anybody else this fall. Failure to do anything about it will pretty much ensure that I will vote for another party.

[albionmoonlight]

Oh, and to answer the question. I think that, come 2008 if not November, the GOP will be sure to have gotten its base and its message back in line.

I do not underestimate the GOP machine. It knows how to win elections and get the majority of the voters into its camp. This immigration flap will pass over and be replaced by the next issue of the day before we know it.

[SirFozzie]

as well as it should, Cam.

Just interesting that the issue seems to be dividing the party.. those who think that a compromise is inevitable, so let's work for making sure the compromise doesn't pull a Reagan and we have to deal with it again 20-30 years down the road.. and the.. well.. for lack of a better words, the true believers.. who have made this the line that shall not be crossed, and if you're not with them, you're a RINO.

[MrBigglesworth]

Yep. I'll probably vote for Lynn Swann this fall, just cause I'm not too keen on Fast Eddie, but honestly, I think I'd like to see some republicans lose elsewhere, just cause they don't get it. I don't think the democrats get it, either, however.

It's time to build a new coalition with the people who want to see a smaller government.
I'm not too enamored with Eddie either, but I don't really see what experience Swann has. I fear it would be a disaster electing a person on star recognition alone, like what happened in Minnesota and California.

[MrBigglesworth]

Honestly, I'd love to see McCain (the nearly independent McCain of 04, not the one who's cozying up to the Religious right in 06), win the election. I think America would be better off with a moderate at the helm, someone not tied to either wing, but a centrist government
The biggest problem we have had recently is a terrible foreign policy, and McCain is to the right of Bush on that. He isn't really that much of a moderate.

[Daimyo]

Nah... they'll they still have gay marriage and abortion in their back pocket and voters have shown they're willing to vote against their other interests when those come up. (As an aside, does anyone actually believe the repubs want to do something about those issues when they're such awesome political weapons?)

It is interesting though that immigration seems to be the first big issue where the republicans can't distill their message down to a sound-bite friendly stance that can be easily sold to lowest common denominator. Luckily for them on this issue the left can't really do much better.

[SirFozzie]

Daimyo: But how often can they go to that well before it goes dry on them?

It's just fascinating that for the most part, the name Republican bloggers/faces out there have been in step with the government policies, unity above all.. then in the last 8 months or so.. down the chute it goes..

[JonInMiddleGA]

Daimyo -- I think what you might be underestimating is the need for the GOP to hit homeruns on 2 of the 3 key issues you mentioned (i.e. illegals, marriage, and abortion).

Anything less and I believe the taint of disappointment is going to be quite strong.

(And for me individually, since I'm pro-choice, they've basically got to bat at least .500 to have any real chance to motivate me to vote, maybe even go 2-for-2 on the remaining issues where they have a chance to make me happy)

[SirFozzie]

Jon: What I meant with by going to the well.. in most of their solid states, they've used the 04 election to push the ballott initiatives to ban gay marriage. What are they going to use as a core issue to push the base to the polls next time around..

Abortion? Maybe, but I don't think the Supremes are ready yet to overturn Roe v Wade in a broad fashion.

Gay Marriage? Most of the states where you need to energize the base, it's been used. Can't go there.

Illegals? The base seems to be divided on the issue. The hardcores love it, the moderates think it needs to be part of a two pronged plan (and the hardcores don't want anything but enforcement)

[Desnudo]

Oh, and to answer the question. I think that, come 2008 if not November, the GOP will be sure to have gotten its base and its message back in line.

I do not underestimate the GOP machine. It knows how to win elections and get the majority of the voters into its camp. This immigration flap will pass over and be replaced by the next issue of the day before we know it.

I agree. The two big things that will impact the election, as always, will be the state of the economy and the war situation. If people are fat and happy, they could care less who's mowing their lawn.

[QuikSand]

The quiet undercurrent of this is that despite all the blogging and gnashing of teeth and licking of mocrophones, there actually remains a substantial ement of the GOP that is not just driven by anger towards people who are different. A lot of them are actually driven by... making money, you know, business.

Having millions of people in this country who are basically hanging around, taking whatever job they can get, working for sub-market wages, staying out of trouble by necessity, and scurrying off to other parts of town by sundown -- to be honest with you, this is basically paradise for the American way of life and for American business.

Part of the reason that this issue is hard to conquer is that there are powerful people, right in the mainstream of politics and decision-making, who meaningfully benefit from the status quo and who recognize that fact, unlike many of the people who are screaming at the top of their lungs about how mass deportation is the only way to go.

[Ksyrup]

Nah... they'll they still have gay marriage and abortion in their back pocket and voters have shown they're willing to vote against their other interests when those come up. (As an aside, does anyone actually believe the repubs want to do something about those issues when they're such awesome political weapons?)

It is interesting though that immigration seems to be the first big issue where the republicans can't distill their message down to a sound-bite friendly stance that can be easily sold to lowest common denominator. Luckily for them on this issue the left can't really do much better.

I'm apparently in the minority, but these social issues don't mean shit to me. I don't care which way they swing on these issues, but at some point, the fiscal policies I thought I was voting for as a Republican are going to force me to vote Libertarian or just sit home. I cannot foresee a situation in which I would vote for a Democrat; but I can damn sure see myself not voting Republican in one form or another.

[Axxon]

oh, as to the Hispanic backlash... Hillary's said we need to build a fence and Dean's said illegal immigration is the Dems top priority for November.

In all fairness, simply saying that the issue is a priority isn't a problem It's the proposed solution that is going to hurt. I don't know who is advocating what but I can tell you, that's going to be bigger than what party they are a member of.

[Franklinnoble]

Immigration isn't a big issue for me, and I doubt it is for anyone else.

What did they say in '92? "It's the economy, stupid."

[Axxon]

I'm not too enamored with Eddie either, but I don't really see what experience Swann has.

Four super bowl rings BAYBEE!!!!!

For the average voter this is more than enough. ;)

[Axxon]

Immigration isn't a big issue for me, and I doubt it is for anyone else.

What did they say in '92? "It's the economy, stupid."

But illegal immegration directly affects the economy, stupid. That's why it's so big an issue.

Not calling you stupid but retorting to the use in your sentence. Had to make that clear.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon: What I meant with by going to the well.. in most of their solid states, they've used the 04 election to push the ballott initiatives to ban gay marriage. What are they going to use as a core issue to push the base to the polls next time around..

That's easy -- Constitutional Amendment.

Barring a serious change in policy on immigration, without a Constitutional Amendment on marriage (creating a greater sense of urgency to maintain GOP control in Washington), I don't believe the GOP has a chance to retain the White House against any candidate not named Hillary.

The other thing that would accomplish the same purpose is, naturally, overturning Roe but that has such a little chance of surviving the courts that I don't know if it would actually create the same bump.

[stevew]

I'm not too enamored with Eddie either, but I don't really see what experience Swann has. I fear it would be a disaster electing a person on star recognition alone, like what happened in Minnesota and California.

I hope that Swann can put together a platform that makes sense for the fall, otherwise I'll probably just sit the election out. I definately won't vote for Eddie, however. After seeing some of his dealings in regards to the casino type stuff, I'm not too fond of him.

[SirFozzie]

The Constitutional Marriage Amendment push will have to come from someone but Bush.. He knows he's a lame duck, and he had the best time to push that after being re-elected.. but he didn't.

The economy has been distilled to one issue in a lot of the masses mind. The gas price at the pump. And that's only going to soar if there's another hurricane season like last yet. If I was a Republican strategist, I would hope and pray that the season stays calm.


I believe that the Republicans will lose one of the branches of Congress (probably the House) in November, and they need to reunify the party behind a message before 2008.

[BishopMVP]

hxxp://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/16/immigration/index.html

(PS - Goes well w/media bias claims)

CNN front page link - House GOP critical of Bush border plan (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/16/immigration/index.html)
Big headline - Conservatives appear unmoved on immigration
Smaller headline - Poll suggests Bush address swayed viewers


In a CNN snap poll of 461 people who watched Monday's speech, 42 percent said they had a positive opinion of the president's immigration policies before they heard him speak. Afterward, 67 percent said they had a positive view, a jump of 25 percentage points.
The polled audience was 41 percent Republican, 23 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
"People who watch the speech do tend to be somewhat more Republican than the voters as a whole," CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said. "But that wasn't the best response he's gotten compared to other speeches, in fact it was lower than any speech we've measured since he took office." and to be complete, link to the actual poll results hxxp://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/05/15/top13-may15-2006.pdf

Democrats shouldn't get too cocky yet. If anything I think it's the spending issues that could potentially cause a bigger rift, but when the choices are spend a lot and run up deficits (Republican line) or spend a lot and be taxed for it (Democratic line) I don't see inroads being made. If the Libertarians or a derivative could get the right candidate it seems 2008 lines up well for a 3rd-party that is strong on immigration, against starting wars overseas and for lower spending, (since mid-term elections are really impossible for a 3rd-party) but I'm sure they'll nominate another nutjob and the Republicans will slide back in line with the base enough to prevent any real change. Or maybe Iran will be the issue then. My main point is just that as much as people want to see a rift in the Republicans, it's not really going to come to fruition unless there is a better alternative out there, and the Democrats don't look too promising at this point.

[Wolfpack]

...it seems 2008 lines up well for a 3rd-party that is strong on immigration, against starting wars overseas and for lower spending, (since mid-term elections are really impossible for a 3rd-party)...

Pat Buchanan? :p

[MalcPow]

In many ways the immigration issue is dividing the right, but it's also moving the debate away from the issues the Dems should want to run on in the fall (corruption, pork, government trust, essentially running a kind of values campaign against the repubs). The left doesn't have any better answers for immigration problems and the right, being split pretty much across the spectrum, has denied the left any kind of high ground stance on the issue, or even a chance to seize a prominent place in the debate. I don't know how calculated it is, but this debate really helps protect a lot of Republicans facing tough campaigns with the stink of ethics scandals on the party by creating some division and internal debate. And because republicans seem to be the noise makers on either side of what could remain a very public issue into the fall the left is forced to associate itself with some strange bedfellows (either the hardcore minuteman types, or, gasp, someone like the President with a more moderate plan). In a lot of ways this defuses, at least in part, whatever position of strength the left might have.

I don't think this is is going to win the right a lot of seats necessarily, but it's going to minimize the disaster potential that GWB's approval ratings might imply. I think conservatives probably should be grateful in a way that they're not going to get to 60 in the Senate or something, because their core issues are not viable policies but sticks to rally votes. A slight loss in '06 sets them up better for '08 anyway, because the Dems don't seem to have ideas and will probably squander any perceived mandate they receive with a victory at the polls. Then two years later the Republican candidate throws Rummy/Cheney/Bush under the bus for Iraq, and can still run a campaign about "change" and the "future" without wearing the scarlet letter of the status quo majority's party. That candidate can focus on the economy, steal back a lot of the center if s/he's articulate and a little less faith-based, and let the Dems ride off into the ocean with Hillary. What does this have to do with all this immigration stuff? Something. The left will shoot itself in the foot because it will feel compelled to get involved in this debate (or in their minds they'll risk losing the hispanic vote forever), and will lose out on the gains they could have by running a focused campaign on other issues. The whole issue as it's framed now is basically some risk, no reward for Dems, so in my mind the fact that it's dividing some on the right isn't going to have much impact. We'll see.

[Glengoyne]

I guess it could open up the party to an attack from the right, a la Nader's coming at the Dems from the left. The thing that makes me doubt that is that the Party Leadership for the Republicans is pretty far right as it is. I don't see the Republican candidate coming from the moderate wing of the party, although that is what I'd like to see happen.

[Young Drachma]

I think I'd like to see some republicans lose elsewhere, just cause they don't get it. I don't think the democrats get it, either, however.

It's time to build a new coalition with the people who want to see a smaller government.

My sentiments, exactly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sen. Isaakson (R-GA) may have earned himself at least one mulligan with me thanks to his efforts today. I can't really hold the failure against him, at least he tried to repair this mess.

(Notable mostly because it's a rare thing lately when a politician actually manages to raise his esteem with me)

[MrBigglesworth]

A slight loss in '06 sets them up better for '08 anyway, because the Dems don't seem to have ideas and will probably squander any perceived mandate they receive with a victory at the polls.
No ideas for what? You could go to any progressive policy site (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ8OVF/b.1597/) and find a ton of policy ideas. Obviously, they haven't had the chance to implement any policy in the past few years though, but that doesn't mean there are no ideas. At least no less than the GOP has.

[SFL Cat]

No ideas for what? You could go to any progressive policy site (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ8OVF/b.1597/) and find a ton of policy ideas. Obviously, they haven't had the chance to implement any policy in the past few years though, but that doesn't mean there are no ideas. At least no less than the GOP has.

So where were these ideas during the 40 years the Dems controlled Congress? Or during the "golden" years of Clinton-Algore? Let's face it, the Donkeys are in just as much trouble as the Elephants. Both have to pay "lip service" to their kook fringes, which just alienates them from most mainstream voters. If the Dems win, it won't be because of their "progressive ideas," (other than "hate Bush/bash Bush," they really don't have much of a platform) but as a backlash against the GOP. Personally, I'll never vote Democrat again...but likewise, the Republicans have really gone sour to my taste lately. They talk the "good talk" but other than mouthing real conservative values, they really govern no differently than Dems do. Personally, I'd love to see a return to gridlock. The less that Washington does, the happier I'll be.

I do find it interesting that the economy is humming along at a better pace than it ever did under Clinton, and yet people seem to be buying the bleak pictures painted by the media. Granted if oil prices continue to surge, the economy could slam on the brakes pretty quickly, however, back when we were paying much less for gas than Europeans, I do recall a lot of lefties complaining about that fact. They argued that lower prices = higher consumption = more driving = more damage to the environment. I don't see them strutting around now claiming a moral victory.

[Buccaneer]

It's time to build a new coalition with the people who want to see a smaller government.

Imagine that.

It won't be a (D) with their strong federal socialism (why anyone would vote for that is beyond me) and as we have seen, it won't be (R) either. It won't be the (L) party either because they are chasing after the wrong messages. Maybe a strong, charismatic, libertarian-minded Independent will be the solution? Do you think the (D) or (R) will allow that?

[ice4277]

Imagine that.

It won't be a (D) with their strong federal socialism (why anyone would vote for that is beyond me) and as we have seen, it won't be (R) either. It won't be the (L) party either because they are chasing after the wrong messages. Maybe a strong, charismatic, libertarian-minded Independent will be the solution? Do you think the (D) or (R) will allow that?

Probably not. I think it will happen one day, but I think conditions need to take a turn for the worse for the average American. Sure, we bitch about gas prices, taxes, and the war, but how much does it really affect the average guy/gal on the street? Not enough to make them change their lifestyle. Once that happens, and for an extended period of time, I think a third party may finally become a viable option.

[QuikSand]

Looking back, it's hard to believe how that little jug-eared crazy person with the 30-minute ads and flip charts had some things just right. I don't think he would have made a good president, but I'm starting to wonder if he'll be the only "politician" in our lifetime who will have gotten through to voters about fiscal responsibility.

[Buccaneer]

little jug-eared crazy person

He truly was quite the character, huh?

[finkenst]

i'm so glad i live in downstate illinois where my vote in national elections don't matter.

[MrBigglesworth]

Imagine that.

It won't be a (D) with their strong federal socialism (why anyone would vote for that is beyond me) and as we have seen, it won't be (R) either. It won't be the (L) party either because they are chasing after the wrong messages. Maybe a strong, charismatic, libertarian-minded Independent will be the solution? Do you think the (D) or (R) will allow that?
Nevermind the Dems or GOP, who is going to fund the campaign?

[MalcPow]

No ideas for what? You could go to any progressive policy site (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ8OVF/b.1597/) and find a ton of policy ideas. Obviously, they haven't had the chance to implement any policy in the past few years though, but that doesn't mean there are no ideas. At least no less than the GOP has.

Being a minority party doesn't mean you have to be completely reactionary, you can still initiate policy discussions and attempt to shape policy (I mean come on, they're 46% of the House and 44% of the Senate, they're given too much slack and should be more proactive). I didn't mean the earlier line as a damning indictment of the left's ideas, and for the most part I agree with you that both sides haven't exactly been producing bold policy agendas lately, but I'm on a number of Dem email lists and they focus almost entirely on Cunningham and Delay and raising more money to drive out the corruption (a strategy I don't necessarily disagree with, but it's not inspiring and is basically a one election pony). Now is probably the time for the left to bring forth their own contract with America, a pledge to clean things up as well as a thoughtful agenda, but they'll play safe, try to even things up in the House, and tell themselves they're saving the big stuff for '08. But I also think most Dems are gunshy, and think that if they trot out the ideas on the sites you're talking about they'll get torn apart nationally (and they might be right). I just wish they'd give it a shot, the left seems content to simply talk amongst themselves and scoff at Bush. Other than with the environment (and their progress here is obviously shaky), no one with any profile is trying to engage public debate and slowly build support for new policy solutions.

[MalcPow]

Probably not. I think it will happen one day, but I think conditions need to take a turn for the worse for the average American. Sure, we bitch about gas prices, taxes, and the war, but how much does it really affect the average guy/gal on the street? Not enough to make them change their lifestyle. Once that happens, and for an extended period of time, I think a third party may finally become a viable option.

Yeah it's going to be tough. And three viable presidential candidates is an electoral college nightmare. Our political system as a whole would not easily accomodate a third roughly equal party, a lot of things would get messy. It would probably ultimately create a better government, but it might not, and the growing pains might be too much to bear.

[sterlingice]

Oh, and to answer the question. I think that, come 2008 if not November, the GOP will be sure to have gotten its base and its message back in line.

I do not underestimate the GOP machine. It knows how to win elections and get the majority of the voters into its camp. This immigration flap will pass over and be replaced by the next issue of the day before we know it.

This would be an ideal QFT

SI

[sterlingice]

In many ways the immigration issue is dividing the right, but it's also moving the debate away from the issues the Dems should want to run on in the fall (corruption, pork, government trust, essentially running a kind of values campaign against the repubs). The left doesn't have any better answers for immigration problems and the right, being split pretty much across the spectrum, has denied the left any kind of high ground stance on the issue, or even a chance to seize a prominent place in the debate. I don't know how calculated it is, but this debate really helps protect a lot of Republicans facing tough campaigns with the stink of ethics scandals on the party by creating some division and internal debate. And because republicans seem to be the noise makers on either side of what could remain a very public issue into the fall the left is forced to associate itself with some strange bedfellows (either the hardcore minuteman types, or, gasp, someone like the President with a more moderate plan). In a lot of ways this defuses, at least in part, whatever position of strength the left might have.

I don't think this is is going to win the right a lot of seats necessarily, but it's going to minimize the disaster potential that GWB's approval ratings might imply. I think conservatives probably should be grateful in a way that they're not going to get to 60 in the Senate or something, because their core issues are not viable policies but sticks to rally votes. A slight loss in '06 sets them up better for '08 anyway, because the Dems don't seem to have ideas and will probably squander any perceived mandate they receive with a victory at the polls. Then two years later the Republican candidate throws Rummy/Cheney/Bush under the bus for Iraq, and can still run a campaign about "change" and the "future" without wearing the scarlet letter of the status quo majority's party. That candidate can focus on the economy, steal back a lot of the center if s/he's articulate and a little less faith-based, and let the Dems ride off into the ocean with Hillary. What does this have to do with all this immigration stuff? Something. The left will shoot itself in the foot because it will feel compelled to get involved in this debate (or in their minds they'll risk losing the hispanic vote forever), and will lose out on the gains they could have by running a focused campaign on other issues. The whole issue as it's framed now is basically some risk, no reward for Dems, so in my mind the fact that it's dividing some on the right isn't going to have much impact. We'll see.

Excellent post

SI

[Abe Sargent]

As long as Democrats don't nominate candidates based on their electability, like Leiberman, and keep tossing up Kerrys, who cares what issues the Republicans fight over?

By the way, I am a Republican who believes we should stop playing footsie with immigration and fully embrace it. Increase the Naturalization cap by ten times, have immigrant location programs sending them to areas in the country that could use their help, crackdown on illegal immigrants, give amnesty to all current illegals, and just blow the wheels of this issue.

This is why I work for politicans and legislators, and am not one myself :)


-Anxiety

[MrBigglesworth]

As long as Democrats don't nominate candidates based on their electability, like Leiberman, and keep tossing up Kerrys, who cares what issues the Republicans fight over?
Lieberman is in serious trouble of losing his primary this year, that doesn't say much for his electability. Why would democrats vote for a republican? If it were him against Bush, I guess they would vote for him, but there isn't any use in electing someone that won't further your agenda.

[Abe Sargent]

Lieberman is in serious trouble of losing his primary this year, that doesn't say much for his electability.

In Connecticut. I was speaking of electibility of a national office. The number of moderates and Republicans who either didn't vote at all or who grimaced and voted Bush because frankly, Kerry was no real alternative, is staggering, and we would have loved the Democrats to give a nice alternate.

-Anxiety

[MrBigglesworth]

In Connecticut. I was speaking of electibility of a national office. The number of moderates and Republicans who either didn't vote at all or who grimaced and voted Bush because frankly, Kerry was no real alternative, is staggering, and we would have loved the Democrats to give a nice alternate.

-Anxiety
Lieberman came in 5th or something in the presidential primary, that doesn't speak well of his electability either. You're basically just saying that the Dems should nominate a moderate Republican so you have a choice of who to vote for, but it would be useless for the Dems to have someone like that in office so they don't put him up for election. It makes more sense to work to have your own party nominate a moderate Republican.

Kerry was a nice progressive alternative that ran a terrible campaign. It happens, but he came within a couple thousand votes in Ohio from winning it. The Dems certainly don't have to sell-out their values to find a winning candidate.

[Anthony]

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/images/car%20seat%20mexican.jpg

[Abe Sargent]

You're basically just saying that the Dems should nominate a moderate Republican so you have a choice of who to vote for, but it would be useless for the Dems to have someone like that in office so they don't put him up for election.

No, I'm saying the Dems should nominate a moderate so that monderates would have somebody to vote for. BTW, Lieberman is not a moderate "Republican." He's definitely left of center. We all know Nixon's "fake right, run up the middle" strategy for winning the primary and then the general. Joe refused to play that game when many others did, and he lost out for it. BTW, McCain refused the same game.

-Anxiety

[SackAttack]

I heard something on the radio the other day, but I don't know how true it is.

Supposedly the Senate passed their version of the bill, including back taxes amnesty for 3 out of 5 years for certain of the immigrants in question. Doesn't tax stuff have to originate in the House, Constitutionally speaking?

Secondly, why is tax forgiveness even part of the discussion here, if the above is true and not just rumormongering by the radio host?

[SirFozzie]

I'd put it as scare/rumor mongering, especially how they love to throw the word amnesty out there.

[SackAttack]

After doing a little snooping, I found a website claiming a transcript of a speech by Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican. The pertinent quote:



Under the bill, an illegal alien who is getting amnesty only has to pay back taxes for the period of employment required in the INA, section 245(B)(A)(1)(d).

This is on page 347 of the bill, if people would like to look. These are actually just 3 of the 5 years between April 5, 2001, and April 5, 2002.

So the plain language of the bill doesn’t require them to pay all their back taxes at all. They get an option to pick and choose which 3 years they want to pay their taxes. Presumably, they can forget and not pay the taxes for the high years. How silly is that?

The full transcript can be found below.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15165

[SackAttack]

Incidentally, in reading that snippet again, since there aren't five years between 4/5/01 and 4/5/02 (nice math, Senator), I'm guessing it was either a typo or poorly phrased.

[SackAttack]

Also, for what it's worth, the radio guy quoted some Senator or other as suggesting that they could evade the Constitutional restrictions by attaching it as an amendment to a previously passed financial bill that DID originate in the House. Nothing about that is mentioned in the above link however.

[MrBigglesworth]

BTW, Lieberman is not a moderate "Republican." He's definitely left of center.
Joementum is a social conservative, a fiscal liberal, and a foreign policy conservative. That adds up to being right of center.

[MrBigglesworth]

No, I'm saying the Dems should nominate a moderate so that monderates would have somebody to vote for.
Dola, what counts as 'moderate' to you? The Dems don't have any far left ideas floating around that they are seriously considering implementing. Meanwhile, the right wants to create a flat tax, abolish social security, create constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, round up and deport all the Mexicans, and go to war with every country we don't like. What was Kerry's biggest left wing issue? Universal healthcare? Eventually universal healthcare is going to be passed by the right, because businesses will demand it.

[clintl]

The Democrats' problem has not been where their candidates lie on the political spectrum. It's that no one in the party has stepped up with an authentic, unifying vision and the skills to campaign and lead effectively.

[Abe Sargent]

The Dems don't have any far left ideas floating around that they are seriously considering implementing.

Part of that is because they are currently the opposition party in both electoral branches. You never really heard people banging around the idea of a Flat Tax until 1996, after Republicans got Congress, as an example. When your party is in power, that party's fringe always comesout of the woodwork and tosses out idea after idea. Bush probably has to beat some of them back with a stick. Clinton had the same thing in 92 and 93 from Democrats.

You can't seriously argue that liberals are more moderate than conservatives just because. Moderate, as a position, is defiend as between liberal and conservative.

BTW, there are many liberal issues, like Gay Marriage and other Gay Rights, affirmative action, abortion, seniors, entitlements and health care where liberals are arguing for a large number of changes.


-Anxiety

[MrBigglesworth]

You can't seriously argue that liberals are more moderate than conservatives just because. Moderate, as a position, is defiend as between liberal and conservative.
Here is what is on the platform adopted by the Texas Republicans, the home state of our current President and Vice President, adopted in 2000:
- The United States should return to the gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve.
- The Supreme Court should not be allowed to decide the constitutionality of laws regarding abortion, religion, or anything else related to the Bill of Rights. In these areas, Congress should be allowed to pass any laws it wishes.
- We should completely do away with separation of church and state.
- Gay sex should be a criminal offense.
- All abortion of all kinds should be permanently outlawed by constitutional amendment.
- Gays should be treated like child molesters and should not be allowed to visit children unsupervised.
- The Biblical story of creation should be taught in science classes.
- Social Security should be abolished.
- The federal income tax should be abolished.
- The federal minimum wage should be abolished.
- The EPA, HUD, HHS, the Department of Education, and several other federal agencies should be eliminated. Since these departments supervise all federal welfare programs for the poor and sick, they are presumably advocating the complete abolishment of the federal welfare state.
- Get the United States out of the UN

Anxiety, this is not the party fringe. These are people with real power, this is the political system that our President came from, the biggest red state in the country, and not even the most conservative. The GOP simply has a more radical agenda than any Democrat right now.

BTW, there are many liberal issues, like Gay Marriage and other Gay Rights, affirmative action, abortion, seniors, entitlements and health care where liberals are arguing for a large number of changes.
What changes are those? And in zero of those issues are the democrats proposing any constitutional amendments, while the GOP are trying to get two passed.

[Glengoyne]

I'm with anxiety on this. Lieberman and McCain are two of few politicians I'd get behind in a national campaign. The fact that both sets of party elites are too dim to nominate them, and effectively sweep the electoral slate is beyond me.

Biggles is right. The Dems don't have to waterdown their choice in the primary to win the general election. Bush proved that!

Well that makes me question that assertion. If Lieberman had been pitted against Bush, we'd have a Jewish president now. I guess Biggles isn't wholly right.

It would be better statetd that; A party doesn't have to consider electibility in a general election during their primary as long as the opposing party nominates a marginalized buffoon.

[wade moore]

I'm with anxiety on this. Lieberman and McCain are two of few politicians I'd get behind in a national campaign. The fact that both sets of party elites are too dim to nominate them, and effectively sweep the electoral slate is beyond me.

Biggles is right. The Dems don't have to waterdown their choice in the primary to win the general election. Bush proved that!

Well that makes me question that assertion. If Lieberman had been pitted against Bush, we'd have a Jewish president now. I guess Biggles isn't wholly right.

It would be better statetd that; A party doesn't have to consider electibility in a general election during their primary as long as the opposing party nominates a marginalized buffoon.

But I think that part of the issue here is that many of the Dems and Reps themselves would not support one of these "electable" candidates. I think of Lieberman in particular - many Dems view him as a conservative in Democratic clothing. Could he have won? Maybe. Did they want him as president? Not so much.

[wade moore]

Dola: And actually, I guess you can say the same about McCain. I've actually heard several of the righties lament the fact that they have a liberal in their with Kennedy driving this immigration bill perhaps.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm with anxiety on this. Lieberman and McCain are two of few politicians I'd get behind in a national campaign. The fact that both sets of party elites are too dim to nominate them, and effectively sweep the electoral slate is beyond me.
Are you kidding me? They can't even win their party primaries, hell Lieberman can't even win a Senate primary in his own state!

Biggles is right. The Dems don't have to waterdown their choice in the primary to win the general election. Bush proved that!
Gore received more votes than Bush, and the vote in Florida was within the margin of error. It was a coin flip that Bush won, and all the while during that race Bush was running like hell to the center. Then in 2004, Kerry was 100k votes in Ohio away from winning the election, and was actually ahead in the polls before the slime machine kicked into high gear and "swift-boated" became a verb. Again, a failure of the Dems to recognize that message trumps substance.

A party doesn't have to consider electibility in a general election during their primary as long as the opposing party nominates a marginalized buffoon.
Erroneous. See: GOP, 2000, 2004. They twice nominated a buffoon and won. And also, it doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate in 2008 is, it could be Mother Theresa and the slime machine will portray her as a marginalized buffoon.

[st.cronin]

I would have voted for Lieberman over Bush. Small sample size, I know.

[Glengoyne]

I would have voted for Lieberman over Bush. Small sample size, I know.
I'll add myself to that tally as well. The Dems are kidding themselves if they think that Lieberman wouldn't have beaten Bush like a red headed step child. Who else would those Dems have voted for.

Same goes for McCain in the GOP. If he wins a primary, he runs away with the General election. Cause not enough Republicans are going to vote for someone else. They are still going to vote republican.

[st.cronin]

McCain vs. Lieberman I probably would have voted McCain, but it would have been an infinitely harder decision than Bush v. Kerry.

[John Galt]

In 2000, I would have voted Bush over Lieberman (if I was forced to choose - I actually voted libertarian). In 2004, I would have voted Lieberman over Bush. Truthfully, I think there is very little difference between the two of them. I think Lieberman may have surrounded himself with better people than Bush and that's really the only difference to me. In 2000, I didn't know about 9/11 and the fact that Bush is a total dumbass, so I would have definitely gone for Dubya. Sadly, the range of views among presidential candidates on domestic issues where change is likely (ie not gay marriage amendments) is so slight that it rarely matters much. Foreign policy seems to be the only real differentiating point anymore, IMO.

[Glengoyne]

Are you kidding me? They can't even win their party primaries, hell Lieberman can't even win a Senate primary in his own state!
See the above post. Dems would have flocked to vote for Lieberman over Bush, especially the moderate ones like me.



Gore received more votes than Bush, and the vote in Florida was within the margin of error. It was a coin flip that Bush won, and all the while during that race Bush was running like hell to the center. Then in 2004, Kerry was 100k votes in Ohio away from winning the election, and was actually ahead in the polls before the slime machine kicked into high gear and "swift-boated" became a verb. Again, a failure of the Dems to recognize that message trumps substance.

I'm sure this will just be a footnote in history, but those guys lost. Not only did they lose, but they lost to GW Bush. That pretty well sums up their electability.


Erroneous. See: GOP, 2000, 2004. They twice nominated a buffoon and won. And also, it doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate in 2008 is, it could be Mother Theresa and the slime machine will portray her as a marginalized buffoon.

My point is that Bush was obviously less of a marginalized buffoon than Kerry or Gore. He did win after all. And don't kid yourself about the Democrat's slime machine. I think the fact that the Democrat's, even John Kerry, got in bed with the likes of Michael Moore is ample enough evidence of that.

[Warhammer]

I would have voted for Lieberman over Bush. Small sample size, I know.

I would have strongly considered voting for Lieberman.

The problem we have today is the primary system. In the primary system you vote for a candidate from one party that you want to run for president. Back in the old days, you would have a smoky room where the party's power structure would decide who would get that party's nomination, primarily based upon electability. The result was more moderate candidates, or those that would further the party's viewpoints.

What we have now, are two candidates that are from the party's fringe, so they can get the primary votes to make it to the big show.

This is a prime example of why democracy doesn't work. Only those that are strongly motivated to vote, get out and vote in the primaries. Many times, capable candidates do not choose to run because of the mudslinging involved. Which finger-pointing and campaigns are worse, the national or primaries? I would argue the primaries (although that is just my opinion).

Finally, the other problem we have is that the parties have really forgotten what they stand for. The Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government in the belief that the private sector and the local governments are better suited to handle many issues. The Democrats traditionally believed that the Government, mostly Federal, was best suited to handle many issues.

The labels conservative and liberal have been used too much and really have no bearing on what they used to mean. Back in the 1800s and early 1900s, the Republicans were or could have been labeled as the liberal party. The Democrats were conservative. However, once FDR took office, the parties basically switched labels due to the Welfare State agenda the Democrats pursued.

What needs to happen for a third party to be viable is a grass roots effort aimed at taking Congressional seats, and then, make a move for the Presidency. The best ground for this party would be the middle, unless the current parties fragment, which would not be a bad thing.

[st.cronin]

John Kerry WAS a marginalized buffoon, even before he was nominated. Do you really not remember the joy on Republican strategists' faces when he emerged as the frontrunner? Howard Dean would have been a better nominee. Wes Clark, who is widely regarded as insane, absolutely would have been a better candidate.

[John Galt]

I think the fact that the Democrat's, even John Kerry, got in bed with the likes of Michael Moore is ample enough evidence of that.

It's still so strange to me that Michael Moore is considered symmetrical with Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Powerline, etc. I mean really baffling.

[MrBigglesworth]

In 2004, I would have voted Lieberman over Bush. Truthfully, I think there is very little difference between the two of them.
And that is the problem right there Glen: having Lieberman in office would be like having a Republican there. Lieberman can't even win his own Senate primary, what makes you think Democrats would flock to him? They didn't flock to him when he ran for President twice. What good would come of for the Dems if he was President?

It's like saying, "If Reagan had come back from the dead and won the Democratic primary, he would have trounced Bush." Great, but still not a good outcome for Democrats in general.

[MrBigglesworth]

John Kerry WAS a marginalized buffoon, even before he was nominated. Do you really not remember the joy on Republican strategists' faces when he emerged as the frontrunner? Howard Dean would have been a better nominee. Wes Clark, who is widely regarded as insane, absolutely would have been a better candidate.
Dean and his Iowa scream? Wes Clark, Rhodes scholar, 5 star general and former commander of NATO forces, widely regarded as insane? Yes, by the rightwing, because of their slime machine. It doesn't matter who the Dems nominate, he/she will still be portrayed as a buffoon.

[st.cronin]

I would have voted for Wes Clark over Bush, too.

[MalcPow]

Dean and his Iowa scream? Wes Clark, Rhodes scholar, 5 star general and former commander of NATO forces, widely regarded as insane? Yes, by the rightwing, because of their slime machine. It doesn't matter who the Dems nominate, he/she will still be portrayed as a buffoon.

Not to split hairs, but Clark was a four-star (hasn't been a five for a long while, and hopefully won't be). But he's also not insane. He's a very intelligent guy, but lacks quite a bit in the charm department and that's probably what did him in. The charge against him isn't insanity but a kind of amoral ambition, and his (in my opinion) genuine awkwardness played into the hands of that portrayal as his discomfort came off as calculation at times. It might not be crazy to see him re-emerge with some polish at Hillary's side in a couple years.

[Glengoyne]

It's still so strange to me that Michael Moore is considered symmetrical with Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Powerline, etc. I mean really baffling.

The difference is that you didn't have the Republican party, nor the President making the same hysterical claims that O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the rest were making. You did have John Kerry piling on the Michael Moore Bush was AWOL bandwagon. Character counts, especially a lack thereof.

[Glengoyne]

I would have voted for Wes Clark over Bush, too.

In a second.

[Buccaneer]

In 2000, I would have voted Bush over Lieberman (if I was forced to choose - I actually voted libertarian). In 2004, I would have voted Lieberman over Bush. Truthfully, I think there is very little difference between the two of them. I think Lieberman may have surrounded himself with better people than Bush and that's really the only difference to me. In 2000, I didn't know about 9/11 and the fact that Bush is a total dumbass, so I would have definitely gone for Dubya. Sadly, the range of views among presidential candidates on domestic issues where change is likely (ie not gay marriage amendments) is so slight that it rarely matters much. Foreign policy seems to be the only real differentiating point anymore, IMO.

I actually agree with you (in that there is almost no difference on domestic issues) but I would argue that despite the rhetoric, the alternative history regarding foreign issues may not have been that much difference. For example, there was a good chance that there would be the same troop level and same amount of insurgencies/sectional violence in Iraq regardless who was president starting in 2005. A better exit time table? I doubt it. But my point is this, regardless of the differences in foreign issues, that will change in time to where the differences will be so slight.

[MrBigglesworth]

The difference is that you didn't have the Republican party, nor the President making the same hysterical claims that O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the rest were making.
Haha, where do you think the talking points come from? THE WHITE HOUSE! Karl Rove, that's his specialty, getting something crazy out there and then having the entire established conservative media to report it. Now, a lot of them have their own psychotic moments, and certainly not everything they say can be traced back to the White House, but what they do is repeat the same incorrect talking points from the administration. To say that the Dem establishment is MORE in touch with the extreme elements in their party than the GOP is ludicrous.

[Glengoyne]

Haha, where do you think the talking points come from? THE WHITE HOUSE! Karl Rove, that's his specialty, getting something crazy out there and then having the entire established conservative media to report it. Now, a lot of them have their own psychotic moments, and certainly not everything they say can be traced back to the White House, but what they do is repeat the same incorrect talking points from the administration. To say that the Dem establishment is MORE in touch with the extreme elements in their party than the GOP is ludicrous.

Show me one quote from the Administration diminishing Kerry's millitary service. Do it.

I saw the DNC website, and the Kerry Campaign's website talking up the Bush was AWOL bit. I heard Kerry throw it out himself in interviews.

You simply can't say the same for Bush and his campaign.

The "official" Bush campaign didn't sling the mud that the Dems did. You will throw the Swift boat vets out there, but they weren't part of the official apperatus. That does matter. Bush didn't lower himself to the same level as Kerry and the Democrat machine.

[Crapshoot]

Show me one quote from the Administration diminishing Kerry's millitary service. Do it.

I saw the DNC website, and the Kerry Campaign's website talking up the Bush was AWOL bit. I heard Kerry throw it out himself in interviews.

You simply can't say the same for Bush and his campaign.

The "official" Bush campaign didn't sling the mud that the Dems did. You will throw the Swift boat vets out there, but they weren't part of the official apperatus. That does matter. Bush didn't lower himself to the same level as Kerry and the Democrat machine.

And "officialy", Bush's campaign didn't spread the word about John McCain having a "mixed-race" child in the South Carolina primary. I'd say you're using a fairly thin line of defense there Glen - sanctioning an action taken on behalf of your campaign is tactic approval of it, unless renounced otherwise.

[Glengoyne]

And "officialy", Bush's campaign didn't spread the word about John McCain having a "mixed-race" child in the South Carolina primary. I'd say you're using a fairly thin line of defense there Glen - sanctioning an action taken on behalf of your campaign is tactic approval of it, unless renounced otherwise.

Hey Bush denounced the Swift Boat Vets, and commended Kerry's service to the Country. Compare and contrast that with how the Kerry Campaign and DNC officially dealt with the criticism's of Bush's service.

FWIW I certainly didn't hold the Moveiton.org tactics against Kerry nor the DNC. They were clearly working on behalf of the Kerry campaign, and they crossed the line more than once.

[MrBigglesworth]

And "officialy", Bush's campaign didn't spread the word about John McCain having a "mixed-race" child in the South Carolina primary. I'd say you're using a fairly thin line of defense there Glen - sanctioning an action taken on behalf of your campaign is tactic approval of it, unless renounced otherwise.
Hey, don't forget about the earlier stuff:
In its last days, the 1994 campaign also turned nasty. Texan voters began receiving calls from "pollsters" asking questions such as: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians?"
It's amazing how all this stuff happens in EVERY SINGLE Bush election, and Bush is totally clueless about it! He really has no idea what is going on! It's not even a part of his OFFICIAL campaign!

Puh-lease.

[MrBigglesworth]

Hey Bush denounced the Swift Boat Vets, and commended Kerry's service to the Country. Compare and contrast that with how the Kerry Campaign and DNC officially dealt with the criticism's of Bush's service.
You want to compare official responses? Let's talk about the GOP National Convention:

http://bottleofblog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/bandaid_1.jpeg

I don't understand why you are so blind to this Glenn, maybe this picture will help where words fail.

[MalcPow]

Haha, where do you think the talking points come from? THE WHITE HOUSE! Karl Rove, that's his specialty, getting something crazy out there and then having the entire established conservative media to report it. Now, a lot of them have their own psychotic moments, and certainly not everything they say can be traced back to the White House, but what they do is repeat the same incorrect talking points from the administration. To say that the Dem establishment is MORE in touch with the extreme elements in their party than the GOP is ludicrous.

The White House is much more isolated than I think you realize. This administration has made a habit of walling themselves off from conservative groups and going their own way (see Miers, Harriet), and there really is not much dialogue (or leadership in many ways) coming from Bush and his people. The right's media machine is a beast unto itself in many ways, driven not by Rove and his talking points but by a genuine disgust with the left and a rabid sense of righteousness. Rove is probably better than anyone at tapping into this occasionally and riding its various waves, but the talking heads are not his mouthpiece. I know less about how the left works, and in some ways the Clinton White House was isolated from their party as well so that may just be the nature of the modern Presidency, but the idea of the left being more in touch or beholden to its outliers isn't that crazy.

[st.cronin]

vast right wing conspiracy
hahahahaha

[MrBigglesworth]

The White House is much more isolated than I think you realize. This administration has made a habit of walling themselves off from conservative groups and going their own way (see Miers, Harriet), and there really is not much dialogue (or leadership in many ways) coming from Bush and his people.
I'm not really talking about leadership, I'm talking about something like Rove says Plame wasn't undercover, and it is repeated and repeated until for some people it becomes fact. There is no question that the right has a more rigid message structure than the left. There is just no comparison.

...but the idea of the left being more in touch or beholden to its outliers isn't that crazy.
The Senate today voted on a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution. What is on the mind of the outliers of the Democratic party that is getting play right now, that big time Democrats are talking about?

[MalcPow]

I'm not really talking about leadership, I'm talking about something like Rove says Plame wasn't undercover, and it is repeated and repeated until for some people it becomes fact. There is no question that the right has a more rigid message structure than the left. There is just no comparison.

I agree with you mostly, but the message structure is so rigid because of a hate of the left. The discipline comes from that absolute animus, not some sort of hierarchy with Rove or whoever at the top and everyone falling in line beneath them. We may not be disagreeing at all on this, I just think it's an important distinction to make that the right is not the well-oiled machine that some make it out to be.

The Senate today voted on a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution. What is on the mind of the outliers of the Democratic party that is getting play right now, that big time Democrats are talking about?

As a supporter of gay rights I can see where you're coming from, but calling this amendment the product of outliers on the right isn't really accurate. Gay marriage was voted down in 11 of the 11 states with ballot initiatives in 2004, and 45 states define marriage as between a man and a woman. As much as I disagree with these sentiments it's difficult to argue that they are an extremist perspective.

[Warhammer]

If the right is such a well-oiled machine why are Bush's poll numbers where they are?

Its simple, the right ain't a well oiled machine. Bush isn't a right wing president. He is a moderate, which is why much of his base has left him. The reason why it looks so well-oiled to those on the outside is that most people on the right have a more or less common vision. Those on the left are much more fractured on most issues because of the coalition nature of the Dem party.

Heck, another way of looking at it is this. Why is immigration an issue that COULD divide the repubs? Simple, because they all have different feelings on that issue, whereas most other issues they form a solid bloc.

[Glengoyne]

You want to compare official responses? Let's talk about the GOP National Convention:

http://bottleofblog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/bandaid_1.jpeg

I don't understand why you are so blind to this Glenn, maybe this picture will help where words fail.

You are correct. That is the very face of the Republican party..... Now who the hell is that?



I actually thought of this as well. Those were shenanigans of the delegates themselves. This is a loose collection of Dubya supporters from around the coutry, NOT the RNC, and NOT the candidate himself.

[CamEdwards]

I'm not really talking about leadership, I'm talking about something like Rove says Plame wasn't undercover, and it is repeated and repeated until for some people it becomes fact. There is no question that the right has a more rigid message structure than the left. There is just no comparison.


The Senate today voted on a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution. What is on the mind of the outliers of the Democratic party that is getting play right now, that big time Democrats are talking about?

Dude, if you think the issue that big time Republicans are talking about is a gay marriage amendment, you know even less about conservatives than I thought you did.

Immigration. That's what Republicans and conservatives are talking about. That and national security. There are a helluva lot of conservatives annoyed and angry at the Senate for wasting time on the gay marriage amendment.

[albionmoonlight]

http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/06/foil-heads-and-level-heads.html


Foil heads and Level heads

The Moose rants.

A group of Democratic Presidential wanabees are busy offering mea culpas and reversals on their positions on Iraq. The 20/20 hindsight brigade pleads if they only knew then what they know now they wouldn't have cast their vote to topple Saddam. Now, they have had enough and want to leave Iraq to the tender mercies of the Baathists and assorted Jihadists.

And some wonder why the Democratic Party has suffered from lack of trust on national security issues. If the Moose only knew then what he knows now about the politicians who switch and pander to the base when it becomes politically popular.

Only hawks win Presidential elections. The American people want a Commander-in-Chief who is resolute, decisive and forward-looking. Fortunately, Hillary understands that and she admirably held her ground yesterday before a group of impolite lefties. Bully for her!

America simply cannot afford a defeat that emboldens our enemies - we already experienced that in the aftermath of Vietnam. As others have observed, if America withdraws now, we would hand a posthumous victory to Zarqawi. And the Democratic Party would be branded for the next generation as the party of retreat.

Unfortunately, the leadership of the Democratic party is in a full sprint into the outer reaches of American politics. They are seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. This weekend they pandered to the tin-foil hat brigade of the blogosphere .The RNC has all the footage in the can. Count on it. Republicans should send Harry Reid and Howard Dean a special thank you note for helping brand the party as out of step with Main Street America.

And all of those wing nuts who thought they would be celebrating "Fitzmas" with a Rove indictment should understand that the corruption issue is turning into a dud. The American people increasingly cannot discern who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

The issue of the day will soon be the Democrats lurch to the left. Where are the responsible voices in the party? Do they not realize that all of the Republican incompetence and corruption will mean absolutely nothing if the American people view the Democrats as a bit nutty and a bit fringy?

Here's the hard truth. Democrats are making themselves the issue rather than the GOP as their leaders pander to the fringe of American politics. That is not a "GOP talking point", but rather the line of assault that the GOP will soon be advancing in a Congressional district near you.

Until the party moves beyond Bush rage, Democratic leaders are serving as Rove enablers. He thanks you all.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here's the hard truth. Democrats are making themselves the issue rather than the GOP as their leaders pander to the fringe of American politics. That is not a "GOP talking point", but rather the line of assault that the GOP will soon be advancing in a Congressional district near you.
http://pollkatz.homestead.com/files/graphic-approval_files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif
CBS News Poll. June 10-11, 2006. N=659 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults). RV = registered voters


.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"


.
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
ALL adults 33 61 6
Republicans 71 24 5
Democrats 9 85 6
Independents 27 67 6
Not a talking point at all. Dislike of Bush and disapproval of the war in Iraq is a fringe position, supported by only 65% of the American people.

[albionmoonlight]

Perhaps it is because it is the position that I currently hold, but I think that there is a difference between "I disagree with the way that the war in Iraq is being managed" and "I think that we should start pulling out of Iraq."

I am certainly no fan of Bush. And certainly no fan of the manner in which he is managing either the war in Iraq or the war on Terror. But I agree with Tony Blair that pulling out of Iraq too soon would be a huge mistake.

And, if my choice in 2008 is between a Democrat running on a "We will leave Iraq" platform and a Bush-clone Republican, I don't think that, right now, I would vote for either.

This is not by way of ignoring the Moose's broader point. Democrats have had the most success in the recent past running to the middle. The Republicans can afford an "energize the base" strategy because there are more self-identified conservatives in this country than liberals. The Dems should take advantage of the GOP problems by stealing the middle from the GOP just as Bill Clinton did. I, personally, don't think that they can build long term success by moving to the far-left--even if they manage to win one election thanks to Bush fatigue.

[MrBigglesworth]

Perhaps it is because it is the position that I currently hold, but I think that there is a difference between "I disagree with the way that the war in Iraq is being managed" and "I think that we should start pulling out of Iraq."

I am certainly no fan of Bush. And certainly no fan of the manner in which he is managing either the war in Iraq or the war on Terror. But I agree with Tony Blair that pulling out of Iraq too soon would be a huge mistake.

And, if my choice in 2008 is between a Democrat running on a "We will leave Iraq" platform and a Bush-clone Republican, I don't think that, right now, I would vote for either.

This is not by way of ignoring the Moose's broader point. Democrats have had the most success in the recent past running to the middle. The Republicans can afford an "energize the base" strategy because there are more self-identified conservatives in this country than liberals. The Dems should take advantage of the GOP problems by stealing the middle from the GOP just as Bill Clinton did. I, personally, don't think that they can build long term success by moving to the far-left--even if they manage to win one election thanks to Bush fatigue.
I agree that they should move to the middle, but the author mistakes where the middle lies. He says that a Senator saying, "with what we know know, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq" is a fringe left position. That's just not based in reality. It's obvious that Iraq is a fiasco and the worst foreign policy decision of my lifetime. 62% of Americans think Iraq wasn't worth it. That the US shouldn't have taken military action is favored 51-44%. 48% of people say we should stay as long as it takes in Iraq to create a stable democracy, 46% say we should get out now. The middle just is not where he thinks it is.

[st.cronin]

I agree that they should move to the middle, but the author mistakes where the middle lies. He says that a Senator saying, "with what we know know, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq" is a fringe left position. That's just not based in reality. It's obvious that Iraq is a fiasco and the worst foreign policy decision of my lifetime. 62% of Americans think Iraq wasn't worth it. That the US shouldn't have taken military action is favored 51-44%. 48% of people say we should stay as long as it takes in Iraq to create a stable democracy, 46% say we should get out now. The middle just is not where he thinks it is.

Worse than leaving Saddam in power after GW1? Worse than the Mogadishu disaster, which arguably allowed bin Laden to become what he was?

I think it will be at least 25 years before we can say for sure whether going into Iraq was a good idea or not. That there is no short-term benefit to us being in Iraq is, I think, what you mean to say.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... there is a difference between "I disagree with the way that the war in Iraq is being managed" and "I think that we should start pulling out of Iraq."

Quick drive-by comment in a thread I'm otherwise avoiding.

Heck, even I would fit into the first statement -- there's a number of decisions about the handling of the situation on the ground that I disagree with -- and I've wondered how much of the negative poll numbers about Iraq have to do with the wording of the question. Technically speaking I fit into the "unhappy with" category for a lot of the phrasings (although I imagine it might be for different reasons than a lot of the other respondents).

[MrBigglesworth]

Worse than leaving Saddam in power after GW1? Worse than the Mogadishu disaster, which arguably allowed bin Laden to become what he was?
If we went to Baghdad in '91 we would have been in the same situation then as we are now only with more US casualties. Bush I, a good president, made the correct decision. Mogadishu? Not even close.

[MrBigglesworth]

As luck would have it, Glenn Greenwald has a great post up about this fringe left fiction today:
One of the most destructive attributes in our political dialogue is the mindless embrace of notions of conventional wisdom, which just get repeated over and over by those who are too lazy to think critically about anything. And there are few places where conventional talking points thrive with as much vibrancy as they do on Instapundit's blog. Here is what Instapundit had to say about last night's Democratic Senate primary results in Virginia, where Jim Webb defeated Harris Miller for the right to challenge Republican Sen. George Allen:


A reader emails: "Don't you think it's also bad news for the left fringe of the Democrat party? I think it shows that voters will not support the Howard Dean-Kos-fringe and it makes for interesting times as Democrats try to find a presidental (sic) candidate for 2008." Yes, when Democrats move to the center, it's bad news for both Republicans and the Democratic far-left.


This is so blatantly wrong on so many levels, but Instapundit can't interpret political events without reliance on this childish framework, so he uses it because he has no other option. The choice between Harris Miller and Jim Webb was not a choice between some far left candidate versus a moderate or conservative candidate. To the contrary, Miller is a corporate lawyer and telecommunications lobbyist who was recruited to run, and actively supported by, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, a moderate to conservative candidate. On almost every issue, Miller positioned himself as a moderate. As The Washington Post put it when endorsing him: "there is no doubting the thought he has devoted to his positions, which are on the moderate end of the Democratic Party's spectrum."

Worse still for Instapundit's "point," Webb -- the former Secretary of Navy in the Reagan Administration and life-long Republican -- was supported, not opposed, by what Instapundit stupidly refers to as the "the Howard Dean-Kos-fringe." John Kerry supported and actively campaigned for Webb, and Kos himself endorsed Webb, not Miller, and said this:


Tomorrow's big contest is Virginia, were VA netroots favorite (and my own) Jim Webb takes on former corporate lobbyist Harris Miller. It's one of those campaigns were both the local netroots and establishment agree on the better candidate -- like the folks over at Raising Kane who love the hard-charging fighting Dem, as well as establishment Democrats like Chuck Schumer and John Kerry.


The leftist ideologue socialist fanatic fringe lunatic Kos also made this point before the primary:


There are lots of ex-Republican Democrats out there. I'm one of them. Jim Webb is another. And over time, we'll get more. And there's no stronger messenger for that cause than Jim Webb himself. . . . I'll be blunt. If Harris Miller wins, there probably won't be much of a Senate race in Virginia in November.


So the truth is, as is so often the case, the precise opposite of Instapundit's statements. Kos himself supported the winning candidate. So did the "leftist fringe" national political figures like John Kerry. And Webb's defeated opponent, far from being some sort of Hero of the Left, was a run-of-the-mill corporate lobbyist who positioned himself as a moderate to conservative on almost every issue. And yet those unfortunate souls who trust Instapundit's "analysis" and believe what he says are walking around today laboring under the standard fantasy that Webb's victory was a repudiation of the "the Howard Dean-Kos-fringe" even though that "fringe" supported Webb.

This is just one more misleading Instapundit post about a relatively obscure primary race, so why does this matter? Because this same fiction is repeated over and over in all corners and, despite its glaring falsity, has the status of conventional wisdom among the national media. Anti-Bush bloggers are leftist ideologues. Their goal is to force the Democratic Party to adopt ideologically leftist positions and therefore will ensure its defeat. Mainstream political figures like Howard Dean and John Kerry -- whose views on most issues are supported by the majority of Americans -- are fringe, extremist leftists whom the anti-Bush bloggers love because of their leftist extremism. And all of them are radioactive losers whose influence and even mere existence are fatal to Democrats.

This is the same intellectual sloth and dishonesty which enables the Instapundit's of the world, to this day, to continue to depict Howard Dean as being some sort of leftist extremist when Dean is one of the least ideological political figures on the national scene and, to the extent he can be ideologically characterized at all, is to the right of most national Democrats on most issues and has been for his entire career. What specific views does Dean hold, or Kos for that matter, which can be characterized by any honest person as "extremist"? While this conventional wisdom is spewed, that question is never answered. But Republicans have pounded that smear drum for so long, and the media has passively ingested and then disseminated it so thoroughly, that the Instapundit's of the world have had that "point" engrained in their head and can never do anything but repeat it endlessly despite its complete separation from what is real.