Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 25, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE END OF THE DREAM?....Karl Rove has long boasted about constructing an electoral strategy that doesn't just win elections for Republicans but instead puts them in a permanent majority. A big part of that strategy has been his effort to woo Hispanics who tend to be culturally conservative and not as historically bound to the Democratic Party as blacks into the GOP fold. George Bush won a sizeable chunk of the Hispanic vote when he ran for governor in Texas, and if the Republican Party could do the same thing nationwide it might well convert America from a 50-50 nation to something more like a 55-45 nation with Republicans getting the double-nickel.

Today that dream is in shambles, and in the current issue of the Monthly Rachel Morris reports that talk radio shoulders a big part of the blame:

Until [mid-2005], Roves strategy of wooing Latinos without actually doing anything that might offend the conservative base had worked remarkably wellperhaps because his outreach to the base and to Hispanics had advanced along separate tracks. So far, he hadnt been confronted with anything that might cause these tracks to converge, forcing the disparate elements of the Republican voting coalition towards collision.

The convergence began on right-wing talk radio....Casting around for something to talk about, hosts discovered the Minutemen. Illegal immigration has always been a perennial source of talk-radio outrage, but the Minutemen, with their warnings that terrorists could enter the country via Mexico, set off a veritable storm. Suddenly, the self-styled border patrols, along with their champion in the House, Rep. Tom Tancredo, became fixtures on radio shows and cable TV.

According to a former senior White House official, the administration became concerned by this phenomenon and conducted some research. Staffers listened to hours of talk radio and found that the obsession with illegal immigration on talk radio had appeared virtually from nowhere. Two years ago, this wasnt on the radar screen, he said. House Republicans, already eyeing the midterm elections, also took note. By then, Tancredos immigration-reform caucus had grown to more than 80 members (in 2001, it only had 15).

Live by the sword, die by the sword. But hey at least they've still got the Voter Vault! Something tells me that's a pretty short-term advantage, though.

Kevin Drum 3:44 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (106)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

They don't need hispanics now that they have Diebold

Posted by: klyde on September 25, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Tancredo is talking about running for the Republican nomination (or better yet - how about third party?). If he runs in the GOP primary against a crowded field, he might easily win several states, the way George Wallace did in 1972.

This is not good news for the country, but it is worse news for the GOP.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on September 25, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

The Voter Vault is consistent with the Republican Plan for a Single Party Government. Data mining to discover the identities of likely voters is a tactic Soviet commissars would have envied.

Posted by: CT on September 25, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

As Democrats drive to extend their power in Congress, holding on to Debbie Stabenow's Senate seat is a must. And the Michigan incumbent is currently ahead in the polls.

Extend what power. Is it too much to ask that the LATimes higher some real journalist?

Posted by: klyde on September 25, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Talk radio? Hell, try CNN. Lou Dobbs could rename his segment "Xenophobia Today!" and have no trouble with truth in advertising. I'd swear Mexicans were raping his dog and making off with his worldly possessions to hear him talk. It's much more mainstream and not just wingnut radio at this point.

Posted by: steve duncan on September 25, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

And I hear Karl Rove just died of typhoid.

Posted by: Ross Best on September 25, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

I find this very racist. What they're saying is that Latinos support criminals who happen to be Latinos. I don't think that's right; it's like saying Republicans have alienated whites by so vigorously prosecuting the Enron crooks.

Posted by: American Hawk on September 25, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Tancredo might as well run as a National Socialist. He won't even be a contenstant among Repubes. But Kevin also fell for a Rove propaganda bit--the Hispanic vote in Texas was not that close. It actually continued to lean heavily Democratic. The difference between 55% and 65% may not mean as much, but the latter means a 2-to-1 split. Bush did not get anywhere near half the Hispanic vote. But after the election, his campaign tried to sell it as if they did. Some media bit, as did, apparently, one Kevin Drum.

Posted by: buck turgidson on September 25, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Kevin and with Rachel Morris that illegal immigration is an urgent issue to a considerable number of conservatives. Where I part company is their assumption that someone must be to blame. In other words, they think illegal immigration shouldn't be an urgent issue. I do.

To see why I feel as I do, let's apply Numerical Literacy. If several million illegal immigrants enter the country, and if the situation isn't fixed, how many will live here in 2010? In 2020? In 2030? The US can accomodate a significant number of illegal immigrants, but when the number becomes too large, things will start to break down.

Some trends tend to automatically moderate if they become too large. Illegal immigration is the opposite. The more illegal immigrants living here, the harder it is to take effective action. In fact, it may be too late now. It may be politically impossible to ever close the border.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 25, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

As bright as he's supposed to be, it's hard to imagine Rove didn't see this coming. Why would the xenophobic block of the party suddenly stop being xenophobic?

Posted by: rsb on September 25, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: It may be politically impossible to ever close the border.

What are you going to do then? Become an ex-fascist?

Posted by: isawwhatyoudid on September 25, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

rsb, I will offer you a deal. If you don't call me "xenophobic", i won't call you "pro-criminal."

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 25, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

You fell for Rove's smokescreen for the media. The Hispanic vote simply isn't that big to matter much, and it won't be for a long time. According to the Census Bureau, it increased from only 5.4% in 2000 to 6.0% in 2004. And it's not much of a swing vote -- it goes up and down as the white vote goes up and down, just roughly 20 points to the left.

What is huge is the white vote. Motivating white voters to turn out and vote is how you win elections in America. But you aren't supposed to talk about that in public, so Rove concocted a smokescreen about how the GOP's fate was in the hands of Hispanics. Innumerate journalists bought it.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on September 25, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Why would the xenophobic block of the party suddenly stop being xenophobic?
Posted by: rsb on September 25, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

He didn't expect that - but he did expect that pandering by appointing a DoJ head, would have compensated. (at least for the Cuban-American community in Florida, who still have an axe to grind over Janet Reno and the Elian Gonzales thing.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 25, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

What Rove didn't foresee (and AH is too stupid to comprehend) is that blood is thicker than ideology.

Posted by: Disputo on September 25, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

isawwhatyoudid, one can see the political problem in the current bill to build 700 miles of border fence. It passed easily in the House, but Bill Frist says it may not have the votes to pass the Senate. Bush would sign it, but I don't know if a Dem President would.

Of course, a fence is an ugly way to close the border, but there seem to be no nice ways. IMHO if we don't build a fence, we will never close the border.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 25, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

When a fifty foot fence goes up, a factory in Juarez will be making 60-foot extension ladders the very next day.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK
Karl Rove has long boasted about constructing an electoral strategy that doesn't just win elections for Republicans but instead puts them in a permanent majority.


The entire idea of a solid lasting electoral majority for one party in our system (without outright fraud) is ludicrous: the parties are always going to continually realign to be roughly competitive. A major party that fails that will be unable to fend off competition from third-parties, and would in short order be replaced by a new party that could compete.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK
I find this very racist. What they're saying is that Latinos support criminals who happen to be Latinos.

Illegal immigrants have not, historically, been criminals, though recent "reform" proposals would make illegal presence a criminal offense. Further, not supporting a particular response to unlawful behavior is not the same thing as supporting people engaging in unlawful behavior. Even not supporting laws that make behavior unlawful in the first place doesn't mean that you support the actions of people who engage in the behavior while it is unlawful.

So, IOW, I'd say your characterization is completely wrong in every way.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK
rsb, I will offer you a deal. If you don't call me "xenophobic", i won't call you "pro-criminal."

Why are you offering not to lie in exchange for other people not telling the truth?

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

The entire idea of a solid lasting electoral majority for one party in our system (without outright fraud) is ludicrous

Your parenthetical explains why it is not ludicrous. I always assumed Rove's strategy once in power was to cement the majority with electoral fraud.

Posted by: Disputo on September 25, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK
Some trends tend to automatically moderate if they become too large. Illegal immigration is the opposite. The more illegal immigrants living here, the harder it is to take effective action.

That's probably true; the easiest fix is to reduce the number of illegal immigrants living here. "Now," you might say, "you can't do that, politically, because there are so many already here." And you might be right, if you were talking about making people leave. If you provide, however, a process for normalization for people already here, and a process for supernumerary but not personally undesirable would-be immigrants to get legal permission to enter by paying a fee to mitigate the costs associated with the scale of immigration, then you'll reduce the number of illegal immigrants both that are here, and that are entering, and make it politically easier to take the necessary steps to prevent personally undesirable immigrants from immigrating.

Prohibit only what needs prohibitted, and your prohibition will be more enforceable. Prohibit too much, and even the more important rules become unenforceable.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen >"...a factory in Juarez will be making 60-foot extension ladders the very next day."

Think it would take that long ?

Seems to me, global supply chain and all, that the ladders would start shipping the day the bill was signed; might even be available on those shop at home channels

"He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator." - Francis Bacon

Posted by: daCascadian on September 25, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing like ex-liberal taking on real liberals, when he should be targeting the Big Business GOPers.

You see, they are the big hurdle for any immigration reform. Why? They love cheap labor.

Keep punching that liberal strawman, ex-lib. Your own party will do nothing to stanch illegal immigration as long as Big Business has any say.

Posted by: NSA Mole on September 25, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK
Your parenthetical explains why it is not ludicrous.

My point with the whole statement, including the parenthetical, was to make the point that wooing particular voting blocks when the party is in power is either delusional or simply window dressing when it comes to establishing a permanent electoral majority; Rove was never going to secure an durable Republican electoral majority by courting Latino voters, or any other demographic.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely >"Why are you offering not to lie in exchange for other people not telling the truth?"

Well, you know the ReThugs like to invert everything and they do have a good historical guide on this one (see Stevenson quote below)...

Disputo >"...I always assumed Rove's strategy once in power was to cement the majority with electoral fraud."

Evidence suggests you were (so to speak) dead on

"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends...that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." - Adlai Stevenson (1952 campaign)

Posted by: daCascadian on September 25, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK
Staffers listened to hours of talk radio and found that the obsession with illegal immigration on talk radio had appeared virtually from nowhere.
Appeared from nowhere? Give me a break! KFBK's Mark Williams in Sacramento started on the illegal immigration bandwagon almost immediately after the California Recall Election, in October 2003. It was a meme consciously placed on the air waves by the usual suspects of the Right - Howard Kaloogian, et al.

Appeared from nowhere? You bet your fat A it came right from right-wing central!

Posted by: Marc Valdez on September 25, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Karl Rove has long boasted about constructing an electoral strategy that doesn't just win elections for Republicans but instead puts them in a permanent majority.

More must be made of that above statement. That idea is so anti-patriotic. It is so contrary to the ideal held by those who founded our country.

A permanent majority in the realm of human politics inexorably leads to tyranny.

Posted by: Keith G on September 25, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, most illegal immigrants are honest people looking for honest work. However, they all broke the law in coming to this country illegally. In that sense they're all criminals.

If you provide, however, a process for normalization for people already here, and a process for supernumerary but not personally undesirable would-be immigrants to get legal permission to enter by paying a fee to mitigate the costs associated with the scale of immigration, then you'll reduce the number of illegal immigrants both that are here, and that are entering, and make it politically easier to take the necessary steps to prevent personally undesirable immigrants from immigrating.

Sounds reasonable, but I don't think it will work, unless we first secure the border. Our country makes it difficult for legal immigrants. They have to jump through all kinds of hoops and deal with the INS, one of the worst federal agencies. cmdicely's proposal would have the effect of putting illegal immigrants at the front of the line. So, it would encourage even more illegal immigration.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 25, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

This is not good news for the country, but it is worse news for the GOP.

Hardly.

Anything bad for the GOP will bring a thousand-fold benefit to the country.

After Osama, Al Queda, Iran, Chavez, the French, and Katie Couric, Republicans are the greatest danger to the US.

Posted by: gregor on September 25, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

NSA Mole, I kind of agree with you. Not big business in general, but certain specific businesses, such as corporate farms, do indeed oppose immigration reform, because they love cheap labor.

The political power of these corporate farms is appalling. And, it works with both parties. In one of the phone records released by Ken Starr, President Clinton was talking on the phone to one of the sleaziest big sugar farmers.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 25, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think the plan is in shambles. Lots of legal immigrants that I know are in favor of strict border control. With the Congress now funding a 700 mile fence and a 1800-tower observation network, those legal immigrants may well turn toward Republicans in higher numbers, even as Republican gainst among Hispanics decline.

As far as I can tell, there seems to be a majority of Americans who think that the immigration law ought to be determined by Americans, written in Congress, and then enforced -- instead of being decided by Mexicans. I preferred the Bush/Senate bill, but this time people who remember the empty promise of Simpson-Mazzoli want real enforcement of the border, and they want it first. The coalition of factions that wants the border secured includes xenophobes, but it also includes legal immigrants who resent what works out to preferential treatment for Mexicans, and it includes others who have legitimate worries about cross-border infiltration of potential terrorists.

Once the Mexican border is enforced, and seen to be enforced, the rest of the comprehensive immigration reform bill can be passed.

Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all ignored the border enforcement promised in Simpson-Mazzoli, so neither party looks good, or even consistent.

Posted by: republicrat on September 25, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen: When a fifty foot fence goes up, a factory in Juarez will be making 60-foot extension ladders the very next day.

That would do more for the Mexican economy than NAFTA ever did.

Posted by: alex on September 25, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_blowback
Manchurian blowback is a term coined after the events of 9/11 to refer to blowback that occurs many years after the actions that led to the blowback. In the case of 9/11, the attacks are seen as blowback from the United States support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, which led to the rise of Osama bin Laden.

The concept takes its name from the 1959 novel The Manchurian Candidate, which features a brainwashed soldier being prompted to take violent action many years after his abduction by hostile forces.

Posted by: hmmm on September 25, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

off-topic: more on the material gains of the middle and lower middle classes.

http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009471.html

Posted by: republicrat on September 25, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK
cmdicely, most illegal immigrants are honest people looking for honest work.

Perhaps. I don't know most illegal immigrants. From those (and the former ones) I have known, I wouldn't ascribe either particular virtue or particular vice beyond the illegal entry itself to them as a generality.

However, they all broke the law in coming to this country illegally. In that sense they're all criminals.

No, see, when you break a law that is not a criminal law you are not a criminal. Its really that simple. Not all laws are criminal laws.

Sounds reasonable, but I don't think it will work, unless we first secure the border.

You yourself have said it is quite possibly impossible to secure our border now.

Our country makes it difficult for legal immigrants. They have to jump through all kinds of hoops and deal with the INS, one of the worst federal agencies.

The INS no longer exists; at any rate, yes, the fact that our country makes it very hard for would-be legal immigrants is part of the problem. To the extent practical, that needs to be streamlined. Particularly, the problem of unavoidable vast waiting lists needs to be dealt with to make legal immigration practical (which is one reason for the "pay to exceed the cap" proposal.)

cmdicely's proposal would have the effect of putting illegal immigrants at the front of the line.

No, it wouldn't. It specifically is designed both to normalize illegals already present when the proposal is adopted and to create new avenues for legal immigration (with appropriate controls and fees) to reduce the incentive for illegal immigration. Clearly, if you have a normalization process for post-adoption illegals (which is probably a good idea), it should not be more attractive than the legal immigration options, because that would encourage illegal immigration.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: Clearly, if you have a normalization process for post-adoption illegals (which is probably a good idea), it should not be more attractive than the legal immigration options, because that would encourage illegal immigration.

Perhaps I should have criticized Bush's proposal, rather than cmdicely's. I fully agree with cmdicely, that illegal immigration should not be more attractive than legal. Unfortunately, I believe the Bush proposal would do just that. One reason is that the INS (who apparently has renamed itself the US Citizenship and Immigration Services) sucks. If they're told to give papers to illegal immigrants, they won't bother with details; they'll give them papers. Any proposal like this must deal with the real-world crappiness of the adminstrative agency involved.

cmdicely's careful distinction between law-breakers and criminals reminds me of the difference between "unlawful" and "illegal".

"Unlawful" means "against the law." Illegal is a sick bird.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 25, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal writes:

Of course, a fence is an ugly way to close the border, but there seem to be no nice ways.

Getting off-topic, but a fence/wall won't work. If there are jobs here for them - and that really is the crux of the matter - illegal immigrants will find a way to get here. The answer lies in effective enforcement of businesses. If you make the penalties much more severe for businesses who hire illegals, and if you start enforcing them, immigration will slow to a trickle.

Posted by: Andy on September 25, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK
If they're told to give papers to illegal immigrants, they won't bother with details; they'll give them papers.

Well, yes, if that's what they are told, they'll have little choice.

If instead a law is passed with conditions and limitations, a bigger risk (judging from history) is that that they'll game around it to avoid actually implementing its intent, like previous amnesties which provided for normalization when deportation proceedings were brought against someone qualified for the amnesty, so the INS would frequently refuse to bring deportation proceedings against people qualified for the amnesty.

Any proposal like this must deal with the real-world crappiness of the adminstrative agency involved.

If its that bad, nothing is stopping a normalization process from being implemented by a new "Office of Immigration Status Normalization" in the Department of Homeland Security independent of CIS; its not like there is only one immigration-related agency in the Department now. You could even prohibit anyone who has worked in CIS or INS in the last decade from working for the new agency, if you want to work to avoid its bad institutional culture from spreading.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Andy: a fence/wall won't work. If there are jobs here for them - and that really is the crux of the matter - illegal immigrants will find a way to get here. The answer lies in effective enforcement of businesses. If you make the penalties much more severe for businesses who hire illegals, and if you start enforcing them, immigration will slow to a trickle.

Shhhh. Don't let reality intrude on a heated debate.

Posted by: alex on September 25, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

From nowhere? That's a short sighted view of history. Obviously these guys weren't around in California in the 90s when Pete Wilson sacrificed short-term electoral advantage for long-term Republican minority status in the state ("They keep coming..."). Or, for that matter, any period in the last half century when Republican xenopohobia reigned supreme.

Posted by: G Spot1 on September 25, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

The idea that the Latino population doesn't vote is nonsense. And that this won't help Dems is even more nonsense.

Until the early 1990s, California, one the national/COngressional level, was considered a swing state leaning Republican.

Other concerns - most importantly, the lesser appeal of religious social issues - have helped Dems here. But the biggest single swing came after Pete Wilson being the Lou Dobbs of his day. He poisoned the well for Repubs in this state. Although some Repubs can appeal - Schwartzenner in his current recovering mode is fine - those who look at all like national Repubs are dead here.

Texas and Arizona, here we come.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on September 25, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely - nothing is stopping a normalization process from being implemented by a new "Office of Immigration Status Normalization" in the Department of Homeland Security independent of CIS; its not like there is only one immigration-related agency in the Department now. You could even prohibit anyone who has worked in CIS or INS in the last decade from working for the new agency, if you want to work to avoid its bad institutional culture from spreading.

In theory this is true. In practice, it's really hard to change a poorly run federal agency into a well-run one. E.g., look at how long the CIA has sucked.

If instead a law is passed with conditions and limitations, a bigger risk (judging from history) is that that they'll game around it to avoid actually implementing its intent, like previous amnesties which provided for normalization when deportation proceedings were brought against someone qualified for the amnesty, so the INS would frequently refuse to bring deportation proceedings against people qualified for the amnesty.

This sort of thing is a real worry. The Bush bill had a temporary moratorium on deportations, until certain steps were completed by the CIS. Since there are supposedly 11 million or 20 million illegal immigrants here, it might take forever before the CIS completed the steps necessary to lift the moratorium on deportations. So, the actual effect of Bush's proposal might be to end deportations, and leave everything else the same.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 25, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Hang on, Thomas1; I'm kind of busy, I have to fix my Darth Vader helmet, the breather-sound thing is broken again. . .

Posted by: (fake)TLB on September 25, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Look at California, people. Once a pretty reliably Republican state (especially on the national level), now pretty solidly Democratic (and Schwarzenegger-style Republican). It's mostly because of changing demographics.

Republicans know it, and it's why they're scared. For the next few decades, the GOP will pound on the race button durign elections to keep the shrinking number of white voters in line and voting GOP. But then the GOP will find itself going the way of the Know-Nothing Party.

Posted by: Speed on September 25, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely's careful distinction between law-breakers and criminals

It's not a "careful" distinction, or do you label everyone who jaywalks or drives faster than the speed limit as "criminals"?

Words have meaning. Start using them correctly if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Posted by: Disputo on September 25, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

Look at California, people. Once a pretty reliably Republican state ..., now pretty solidly Democratic ..... It's mostly because of changing demographics.

Or maybe because they're a shining example that progressive policies WORK. (considering that despite the Enron looting, California is still the world's 6th largest economy).

Posted by: (fake)TLB on September 25, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK
In theory this is true. In practice, it's really hard to change a poorly run federal agency into a well-run one. E.g., look at how long the CIA has sucked.

By nature, the CIA's successes are less obvious than its failures. Frankly, I'm not sure the CIA has ever sucked compared to any reasonable set of expectations for a national intelligence service.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

I've often thought that its not merely the racist card, certainly, the racist contingent and the fundamentalist religious contingent can co-exist in the same party, since both are almost a form of "single-issue voter" -- basically, not because racism or religion is an "issue" its just that both of these groups cannot possibly identify in any way with either a broad multi-faith worldview, or a multicultural one -- for them its either vote Republican or stay home. It would not matter if the actual number of multi-faith or multi-culturalists in the Democratic party were 10 people in the entire country, its Repulican or nothing for these voters.

What talk radio really has proven is that the "Government sucks-liberals like government-therefore liberals suck" line of argument has an amazingly long life.

Realistically, one would have thought that at some point people would have tired of that basic message. Especially since this is not the Klingon government or the Romulan government we are talking about, it is our government. However, as long as the Democratic party was in power you could sort of see the appeal. However, as the Republican party actually "is" the government, and has been for some time, you'd expect someone to finally wake up and smell the ridiculousness -- its certainly fine for some guy on a barstool to rave about a hassel at the DMV, but for George Bush to base an entire presidency about being the guy on the barstool, well, the mind reels.

Nevertheless, the Republicans have put quite a few eggs in this basket, and I think it, not racism per se, is the key to their getting anywhere close to 50%.

Posted by: hank on September 25, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, most illegal immigrants are honest people looking for honest work.

Setting aside the "honest" qualifiers, it is very clear that most illegal immigrants are people looking for work. And to not address that issue, but instead think you can solve the problems of illegal immigration with walls and observation towers is a recipe for failure.

Posted by: Edo on September 25, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

In theory this is true. In practice, it's really hard to change a poorly run federal agency into a well-run one. E.g., look at how long the CIA has sucked.

One word: FEMA. Within a few short years Bill Clinton had taken what was once a well of hack patronage appointments and, by appointing professionals who knew their job, turned it into a model of well-run efficiency.

Until, of course, Bush came along and trashed it again.

Posted by: Stefan on September 25, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

"But hey at least they've still got the Voter Vault!"


and they got me!

(or am I just the ghost in the voting machine?)

Posted by: Al Clone 6678 on September 25, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Chris Wallace - on poking the big dog:

"Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me."
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 25, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals are so cute when they report on what other Liberals are reporting about what will surely be "Another Big Victory"(tm) as reported in Liberal newspapers/magazines.

Posted by: Inigo Montoya on September 25, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK
"Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me."

Pussy. Did he not know what to expect? Had he never seen footage that would have shown that the Big Dog doesn't take any shit, and will most certainly give as good as he gets.

Publicans are so god-damned quick to say that Democrats are a bunch of indecisive wimps, but they piss in their boots when the Big Dog bites back. Suck it the fuck up. This round goes to Bill, and chris Wallace looks like I whiny little bitch.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Whoops. The first paragraph was supposed to be blockquoted and italicized, and the second two normal text. two days in a row i've f'd up a tag. Once more and i will go to time out.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen,

You think Chris (son of Mike) Wallace is a conservative?
Are you out of your freaking mind?
His friends tried to talk him out of taking the job at Fox because he's a Liberal and they didn't want him to be associated with FoxNews.

Posted by: Inigo Montoya on September 25, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

...and they didn't want him to be associated with FoxNews.
Posted by: Inigo Montoya on September 25, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Well, he's associated now, ain't he?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 25, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

His friends tried to talk him out of taking the job at Fox because he's a Liberal and they didn't want him to be associated with FoxNews.

Sources? How has he distinguished himself as a liberal?

Posted by: Westley on September 25, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Liberal? As that great sage yoda once said "A fucking break, give me."

He came off looking like a whiny little bitch. Oh how I did laugh at the thought of the big wet spot on his trousers.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 25, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

OBF,
And your point is that anybody who works at FoxNews is necessarily a Righty to be feared and loathed? Tolerant Left anybody?

Westley,
Please use an appropriate search engine. It's called the internets and the tubes can get you anywhere.

GC,
Yes. I'm sure he came off as a whiny little bitch. To you. Try to extract yourself from the Liberal cocoon and evaluate how it looked to non-affiliated voters.

Posted by: Inigo Montoya on September 25, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Inigo,
Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Westley on September 25, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

Now even Faux News is liberal according to the wingnuts?

LMAO.

Posted by: Disputo on September 25, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

No Disputo. The point is that not every man or woman who takes a job at FoxNews is necessarily a conservative. Chris Wallace is a Lefty.

John Stossel is at ABC (iirc) but there aren't many(any) other conservatives in their offices. See?

Westley,
The tubes await your exploration.

Posted by: Inigo Montoya on September 25, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

Chris Wallace is a Lefty.

Still waiting for your evidence, wingnut.

Posted by: Disputo on September 25, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

The Japanese had Tokyo Rose. The neocon fascists have Rush Dimbulb and Michael Weiner (a/k/a Savage). No difference. Idiotic propagandists...

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 25, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

The percentage of Hispanics who vote republican has grown with every election. 44% voted for Bush in 04. They are devoutly Catholic. After the 06 Midterms the Republicans will go through with the Bush amnesty plan and (along with the beefed up border security and internal enforcement) this will satisfy the Republican base and cement Republicans as the governing majority (like Rove intends)

Posted by: Fitz on September 25, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

cement Republicans

The only Republicans who don't endanger the country, although they are susceptable to acid rain.

Posted by: Disputo on September 25, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen >"...Pussy..."

Uh, well yea

That`s one of the requirements to work at FOX Noise

It would be a good place to get some "enlistees" for duty in Iraq IMO

"...The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power..." - Henry Wallace

Posted by: daCascadian on September 25, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

And it was Hispanic dj's, especially morning show djs, from LA to Phoenix to San Antonio who energized their listeners to get active on the issue.

Posted by: Slothrop on September 25, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

...evaluate how it looked to non-affiliated voters.

What? Only the affiliated can recognize a squirming, smirking, "whiny little bitch"?

I don't know how we got from immigration to Chris Wallace so suddenly. Anyway:

Inigo Montoya, are you saying Wallace did adequate research before he tried out his pathetic "attack-question"?

Posted by: exasperanto on September 25, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

And your point is that anybody who works at FoxNews is necessarily a Righty to be feared and loathed? Tolerant Left anybody?

No, Inidiot, not to be feared but yes, to be fought, certainly to be scorned. The dumbfuck nativist network and the party it serves may not yet have swaggered irredeemably far down the path but their way lieth monsters (with which we had far too intimate a relationship last century)
To be tolerant does not mean to roll over for evil. Ie. no tolerance for intolerance. Can you wrap your head around that one?

Posted by: snicker-snack on September 25, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Addressing just the political calculations of this issue, I think you are falling for a logical fallacy when you argue that Hispanics in general will be offended by tightening the border. It's usually the last people aboard who are most eager to have the drawbridge pulled up behind them. If the choice is between carte blanche for the self-selected "undocumented" or a regularized system where there is some family preference available in getting their own nephew or cousin a green card, the vast majority of legal immigrants [or to-be-amnestied immigrants] will turn into the most vociferous supporters of border tightening.

Posted by: minion of rove on September 25, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

Andy: Getting off-topic, but a fence/wall won't work. If there are jobs here for them - and that really is the crux of the matter - illegal immigrants will find a way to get here.

A fence/wall will work very well, it just won't work perfectly. There is no reason to think it can't keep out 90% of those illegals who currently cross the border. Once the barriers are in place, then the Senate/Bush plan can be enacted which doubles the annual limit on legal immigration, and provides an expedited procedure for the illegals already in the U.S. That would do a lot to end the bias in immigration policy that favors Mexican immigrants. Half of the illegal immigrants are not Mexicans.

Fitz: After the 06 Midterms the Republicans will go through with the Bush amnesty plan and (along with the beefed up border security and internal enforcement) this will satisfy the Republican base and cement Republicans as the governing majority (like Rove intends)

I agree with that.

Posted by: republicrat on September 25, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

tigtening the border: fine
anti-hispanic hysteria: not fine

guess which is the message of right wing radio?

don't conflate the two

Posted by: snicker-snack on September 25, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

A fence/wall will work very well, it just won't work perfectly. There is no reason to think it can't keep out 90% of those illegals who currently cross the border.

Of course there is. That reason being that USAmerican business needs them.

You idiots who want to restrain free markets make me sick.

Posted by: Disputo on September 25, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

As usual, I've entered in BizarroWorld, with Kevin Drum and others as WM displaying their ignorance of this vital issue for all to see. One would think that Kevin Drum could take the time spent designing a few charts or taking pictures of cats to do some research into this issue and find out why the American public is so angry about the massive illegal activity that the Democratic Party and the GOP support. Instead, all he has to offer is ignorant, feel-good comments.

If you'd like to find out what's really going on and why this is so important, here's a very brief introduction. Scroll through my archives to, once again, understand why this issue is extremely important. Those are available in digest form, so just scroll through them and perhaps you might learn a thing or two you haven't been made aware of.

As for the fine line between supporting something and not supporting it, I have no problem with stating that the Democratic Party fully and completely supports illegal immigration. When Democratic leaders support foreign citizens who are here illegally marching in our streets - in the case of CA even passing a resolution in support of such a show of force in our streets - and there is no repudiation from the Democratic Party, that constitutes full and complete support.

As for cmdicely's suggestion that "you might be right, if you were talking about making people leave", "liberals" like Kevin Drum are encouraged to think that through. They will probably run and hide under the covers if they're able to figure out what that implies.

Posted by: TLB on September 25, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK
Addressing just the political calculations of this issue, I think you are falling for a logical fallacy when you argue that Hispanics in general will be offended by tightening the border.

The contention isn't an abstract speculative generality that Hispanics will be "offended" by "tightening the border".

There have been a number of polls this year showing that Bush and the Republican Party are losing support among Hispanics, and losing the perception among Hispanics that they are concerned with issues of concern to the Hispanic community.

See, among others:
Washington Post, May 21, 2006 (which also contrasts with your argument about Hispanics being the most eager to pull up the drawbridge.)
USA Today, July 13, 2006.

It's usually the last people aboard who are most eager to have the drawbridge pulled up behind them.

There is no reason to resort to abstract analysis and trying to find specific application from broad (even stereotyped) generalities to determine how people might theoretically react when actual facts show how people are, in fact, reacting. And when your abstract reasoning suggests that people will react differently than they are, in fact, reacting, you should ask why you are wrong, not try to ignore the facts.

If the choice is between carte blanche for the self-selected "undocumented" or a regularized system where there is some family preference available in getting their own nephew or cousin a green card, the vast majority of legal immigrants [or to-be-amnestied immigrants] will turn into the most vociferous supporters of border tightening.

Even if that was a true generality, those are neither the only two options nor the two major sides of the recent actual debate, so besides just throwing up random irrelevant speculation, I'm not sure where you are going with this argument.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK
A fence/wall will work very well, it just won't work perfectly. There is no reason to think it can't keep out 90% of those illegals who currently cross the border.

Uh, why? Many illegals come through legal crossing points, either smuggled in or with false documents. And, even if that wasn't the case, I'm not sure why you think that a proposed 700 mile fence along a ~2,000 mile border is going to keep out 90% of those illegals who currently cross it, even if none of them crossed at regular crossing points.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Where I was going with this argument is that there is a tremendous distinction between opposing immigrants and opposing illegal immigration. I concede the MSM, the organized left and the Dem Party will try to obsfucate that distinction to their benefit when lumping all opposition to the status quo as bigots -- we went through the same process with welfare reform.

Posted by: minion of rove on September 25, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

TLB, what's with your monomaniacal obsession with this one issue? Do you know that Russia has an even higher level of illegal immigrants? (same number as the States with less than half the population)

In Japan, where I live, there's estimated to be only about 300,000 illegal aliens, so about 5% of the US level when populations are factored in.

I knew one Filipina here illegally who wanted to get deported so she could marry her American boyfriend and immigrate legally to the States. She went to the immigration office to say she'd overstayed her visa by five years but at that time Immigration was dealing with an influx of boat people from China and asked her to come back in two weeks.

Anyway, irrelevent asides aside (I'm fond of these), the whole point is as disputo says, to stop the vacuum not to punish those caught up in it. To turn off the vacuum, punish the businesses.

Posted by: snicker-snack on September 25, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

TLB,

You've got the forceful-language and the cynical-command-of-the-situation things down pretty good; the understanding-humanity thing, not so much.

And, please, don't call us ignorant and then ask us to go visit your blog.

Posted by: exasperanto on September 25, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK
As usual, I've entered in BizarroWorld,

Well, that does seem to be where you usually post from...

with Kevin Drum and others as WM displaying their ignorance of this vital issue for all to see.

Not buying into your spittle-flecked ravings is not "ignorance".

One would think that Kevin Drum could take the time spent designing a few charts or taking pictures of cats to do some research into this issue and find out why the American public is so angry about the massive illegal activity that the Democratic Party and the GOP support.

What "illegal activity" do they support?

Instead, all he has to offer is ignorant, feel-good comments.

Even if that was true, it would be better than your ignorant, feel-bad comments.

If you'd like to find out what's really going on and why this is so important, here's a very brief introduction. Scroll through my archives to, once again, understand why this issue is extremely important.

I know what's going on and why its important. Your archives aren't worth the electrons used to transmit their contents.

Those are available in digest form, so just scroll through them and perhaps you might learn a thing or two you haven't been made aware of.

The only thing to learn from your archives is that you are a nutball, which is demonstrated adequately by your postings here.

As for the fine line between supporting something and not supporting it, I have no problem with stating that the Democratic Party fully and completely supports illegal immigration.

Well, yeah, the truth has never been particularly important to you, has it.

When Democratic leaders support foreign citizens who are here illegally marching in our streets - in the case of CA even passing a resolution in support of such a show of force in our streets - and there is no repudiation from the Democratic Party, that constitutes full and complete support.

The marchers were not exclusively "foreign citizens", nor were those who were foreign citizens exclusively people who "came here illegally", and even among those who came here illegally, not all were still present illegally.

As for cmdicely's suggestion that "you might be right, if you were talking about making people leave", "liberals" like Kevin Drum are encouraged to think that through. They will probably run and hide under the covers if they're able to figure out what that implies.

I don't think consideration of the fact that it might be politically impractical and morally undesirable to forcibly deport millions of people many of whom are contributing members of society who, despite having come here illegal, are not causing any harm to our nation.

Law is more enforceable when it contains only provisions which should be enforced. When prohibitions sweep to broadly, they become ineffective. No reason to be scared of that. No reason to be scared that allowing that to go on for decades results in a situation where the options for getting back to a tenable policy are constrained. What is needed is not to run and hide, but to address the situation realistically.

The paranoid garbage you point to to suggest we should all be afraid of that simple reality misses the fundamental point: we don't need to deport millions of illegal aliens to preserve our security; the millions of illegals are not illegal because they are security risks, they are illegal because of poorly-drawn numeric limitations imposed for non-security economic reasons.

There are better ways of addressing those problems, and when they are addressed better, our ability to deal with the aliens who are security risks will be enhanced, because there won't be enormous masses of illegal immigrants with entire black-market industries supporting them which further complicate the task of dealing with those who might be security risks.

Maintain freedom except where prohibits are essential, and your prohibitions will be much more effective.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK
I concede the MSM, the organized left and the Dem Party will try to obsfucate that distinction to their benefit when lumping all opposition to the status quo as bigots

Plenty of Democrats are opponents of the status quo. Almost everyone agrees that the current system is unworkable.

Its just that your side wants to make it worse, rather than fixing it.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 25, 2006 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK
Staffers listened to hours of talk radio
Some monitor talk radio, others monitor blogs. It seems like every progressive blog has at least of couple of steady Bushistas who seem to have ample time to comment with RNC talking points. When the economy turns sour and employment rises, there are more complaints about immigrants. That fits the Bush economy.
... more on the material gains of the middle and lower middle classes.... republicrat at 5:22 PM
Jane Galt would certainly be the first blog that I would go to for illusionary statements on how good the Bush economy is, but I prefer legitimate economist sources .
Where's TLB when you need him?! Thomas1 at 5:57 PM
Feeling horny? Dubya not available at the moment? Posted by: Mike on September 25, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz wrote:

"The percentage of Hispanics who vote republican has grown with every election. 44% voted for Bush in 04."

Not true, according to Democratic pollster Ruy Teixeira here, who claims Bush's share of the Hispanic vote was 39% in 2004, not the widely-reported 44% number:

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20606/

Also, it's not clear whether the relatively high % of Hispanic voters Bush has managed to court translates to other Republicans, no matter how pro-illegal immigration they are. Bush's 39% looks like a high-water mark for Hispanics voting Republican, and even that's a split (3-2, roughly) Democrats would obviously be real happy to take.

Also, keep in mind that that 39% vote is for a pro-amnesty, pro-illegal immigration, pro-massive domestic spending Republican president. How many Mexican-Americans would vote for a president who actually believed in limited government, enforcement of immigration laws, and other actual conservative positions? Far less than 39%, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Orkon on September 25, 2006 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

I think Rachel Morris's original point from the Monthly piece is also mistaken. She writes:

"According to a former senior White House official, the administration became concerned by this phenomenon and conducted some research. Staffers listened to hours of talk radio and found that the obsession with illegal immigration on talk radio had appeared virtually from nowhere. Two years ago, this wasnt on the radar screen, he said. House Republicans, already eyeing the midterm elections, also took note. By then, Tancredos immigration-reform caucus had grown to more than 80 members (in 2001, it only had 15)."

I think this just shows that the Republican elite was out of touch with the base (and most of America generally). Illegal immigration has been a growing concern among the electorate for quite a few years now; what Morris dismisses as a sudden "obsession" of the American people with illegal immigration is actually a normal, healthy concern for the future of the country (Mexicanization is not a happy prospect, sorry folks).

This anti-illegal immigration wave isn't just something that began appearing on talk radio "out of nowhere"; it taps into real concerns of the American people.


Posted by: Orkon on September 26, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

It seems like every progressive blog has at least of couple of steady Bushistas who seem to have ample time to comment with RNC talking points.

Along with a horde of regular leftist posters who don't seem to have jobs either.

Keith G:

More must be made of that above statement. That idea is so anti-patriotic. It is so contrary to the ideal held by those who founded our country.

A permanent majority in the realm of human politics inexorably leads to tyranny.

Yeah, I remember the liberals taking to the streets in anger when the Democrats had the presidency and both houses of Congress. I doubt that if Democrats had a "permanent majority" that anyone here would gripe.

Posted by: monkeybone on September 26, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack inquires: TLB, what's with your monomaniacal obsession with this one issue?

Whatever it is, it has absolutely nothing to do with me actually researching the issue with an open, non-partisan mind and then realizing exactly how much danger we're in.

cmdicely politely says: Not buying into your spittle-flecked ravings is not "ignorance".

Kevin Drum doesn't have to buy into my opinions. However, based on his comments here, I don't think he's willing to do research with an open mind. I don't think he's willing to admit that, for instance, some of the groups on his side have questionable links. He's not willing to renounce Democrats who encourage foreign citizens to march in our streets making a show of force.

What "illegal activity" do they support?

As I have posted here several times and even in this thread, the Democratic Party fully supports illegal immigration. They do that through, for instance, Harry Reid stabbing American hurricane victims in the back and supporting the illegal aliens who were brought in to take their jobs. The CA Dems did that through passing a resolution supporting the illegal aliens who were marching in our streets, and the national Dems do that by not taking any actions AFAIK against those CA Dems.

The marchers were not exclusively "foreign citizens", nor were those who were foreign citizens exclusively people who "came here illegally", and even among those who came here illegally, not all were still present illegally.

I've said something similar, but in comments above I also never said all were illegal aliens.

I don't think consideration of the fact that it might be politically impractical and morally undesirable to forcibly deport millions of people many of whom are contributing members of society who, despite having come here illegal, are not causing any harm to our nation.

It's much more than that. Trying to conduct mass deportations of even just a small part of the illegal aliens might result in civil disturbances, riots, burned buildings, and the like. All of our military forces are far outnumbered by the number of illegal aliens here, and most of those illegal aliens are clustered in major urban centers.

That point illustrates the level of debate offered by people like Kevin Drum. If he ever acknowledged that point, it would to immediately dismiss it. Yet, it's something that serious people need to consider in an open-minded, non-partisan fashion. I don't think Kevin's capable of that.

Posted by: TLB on September 26, 2006 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

Mike, the New York Times is one reason why conservatives are richer than liberals. Those unfortuntate liberals who had faith in the Times, and particularly in Paul Krugman, would have believed the economy was in the toilet during the last 5 years. If they followed that belief, they sold their stocks and pulled out of the stock market.

Conservatives who ignored the Times's nonsense invested their money. During the last 5 years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up almost 30%, and that increase doesn't include stockholder dividends.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 26, 2006 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

Trying to conduct mass deportations of even just a small part of the illegal aliens...

And who is proposing this exactly?

...might result in civil disturbances, riots, burned buildings, and the like.

Careful, you might frighten small children with such talk.

All of our military forces are far outnumbered by the number of illegal aliens here, and most of those illegal aliens are clustered in major urban centers.

I get it. Illegal aliens=the new insurgency.

Now I understand the "wacko" part of your handle.

Posted by: exasperanto on September 26, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

Jason:

Ya'll do realize that we're going to win one of the next nine elections, don't you?

Now THAT'S ambition! Hey, maybe you'll actually win one of the next seven!

Posted by: rnc on September 26, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

Now the wingnuts are touting a bubble in the secondary stock market as a sign of a healthy economy?

LMAO.

Here's a word of wisdom for all you econo-illiterate wingnuts out there -- the stock market moves orthogonally to the overall economy. And as even newbies know, whether the market is going up or down, the smart person can make money in it.

Really, folks, you're gonna have to try better than this.

Posted by: Disputo on September 26, 2006 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK

What a laugh that these paleos want to edit Lady Liberty's inscription and turn the U.S. into a gated community.

But it'll never happen. The Corporatists are leading the GOP, with the Paleos are their collective bitch. And cheap labor is not something they will sacrafice, no matter how much their gums flap.

Posted by: Paul R on September 26, 2006 at 5:14 AM | PERMALINK

宝贝计划下载 性爱图片 台湾18电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康图片 性教育电影 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线下载 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 美女乳房 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 人体艺术摄影 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情

Posted by: amr铃声 on September 26, 2006 at 7:00 AM | PERMALINK

Today's version of the Dixicrat Party - otherwise known as the GOP - is hostile to minorities of any color. George Bush was able to paper over it for awhile, but the party's nativist tendancies were going to come out at some point. They had been bottled up for 6 years and the pressure was getting too big to hold back.

Posted by: ET on September 26, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK
It's much more than that. Trying to conduct mass deportations of even just a small part of the illegal aliens might result in civil disturbances, riots, burned buildings, and the like. All of our military forces are far outnumbered by the number of illegal aliens here, and most of those illegal aliens are clustered in major urban centers.

Wonderful word "might". Yes, its abstractly possible that people might react that way to a small number of deportations, but, even assuming that that's a likely outcome, so? It just undermlines the problems of having a prohibition sweep to broadly; it undermines legitimacy of the law. So, you provide a legalization method for illegal aliens already present that are not personally undesirable, you provide a method for would-be immigrants who aren't personally undesirable to immigrate legally beyond existing numerical caps by paying a fee which goes to fund programs to mitigate economic costs associated with the level of immigration, and then you don't have a huge mass of illegal immigrants already here or a strong motive to immigrate outside of the (newly expanded) legal system, and enforcement of the remaining prohibitions becomes far less controversial. So, really, even granting that you are right about this, it merely further illustrates that the policies you seem to support are the wrong approach.

That point illustrates the level of debate offered by people like Kevin Drum.

I thought it rather clearly illustrates the shallowness of your own thought, since you keep hammering on this point even though it clearly shows the whole approach you seem to support to be misguided.

If he ever acknowledged that point, it would to immediately dismiss it.

This makes no sense, and I can't even guess what you might have intended with this since any of the obvious choices to rephrase it still don't make any sense in context.

Yet, it's something that serious people need to consider in an open-minded, non-partisan fashion. I don't think Kevin's capable of that.

I don't know why you are complaining about Kevin; you, who pretend to believe it, obviously are incapable of considering it in a serious, open-minded, non-partisan fashion. And you seem equally incapable of providing any reason for anyone else to believe it.


Posted by: cmdicely on September 26, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK
The CA Dems did that through passing a resolution supporting the illegal aliens who were marching in our streets

As you yourself acknowledge elsewhere, the marchers were not "illegal aliens", they were a mixed group of citizens, legal aliens, and illegal aliens—marching in support of a particular policy towards illegal aliens already here. Supporting the marchers is not supporting particularly the illegal aliens marching, but supporting the policy advocated by the marchers as a whole toward illegal aliens already present. Further, even if it was supporting marching by illegal aliens already here, that would not be the same thing as supporting illegal immigration.

Now, you may disagree that that policy at issue is the best way to deal with the problem of having a large population without legal status, and a valid debate can be had about that. But first you need to stop lying in order to pretend that those people who propose a different policy than the one you want "support illegal immigration".

Posted by: cmdicely on September 26, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely writes:

"But first you need to stop lying in order to pretend that those people who propose a different policy than the one you want "support illegal immigration"."

But cmd, it stands to reason that people who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2006 will also favor amnesty in, say 2015. So I think the original point stands that those who marched in May, to some degree, did indeed "support illegal immigration".

Posted by: Orkon on September 26, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives who ignored the Times's nonsense invested their money. During the last 5 years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up almost 30%, and that increase doesn't include stockholder dividends.

What a stupid stupid lie, because so easily checked:

Here's the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) closing quarterly average as of June 30, 2001: 10,502.40

And here it is five years later in 2006: 11,150.22

I don't know how good you are at math, but a rise from 10,502.40 to 11,150.22 is not "almost 30%."

Posted by: Stefan on September 26, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely says: Wonderful word "might". Yes, its abstractly possible that people might react that way to a small number of deportations, but, even assuming that that's a likely outcome, so? It just undermlines the problems of having a prohibition sweep to broadly; it undermines legitimacy of the law.

It's also highly possible that agitators might key off deportations to decide that the revolution is now and encourage "actions". Look into the involvement of far-left groups in recent small riots at immigration protests.

And, those who take the line you do are basically admitting that we've been invaded and settled and have no choice but to surrender.

Posted by: TLB on September 26, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK
But cmd, it stands to reason that people who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2006 will also favor amnesty in, say 2015.

No, that only stands to reason if none of the factors that form the context in which they support the amnesty in 2006 have changed.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 26, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK
It's also highly possible that agitators might key off deportations to decide that the revolution is now and encourage "actions".

"Agitators" encourage "actions" all the times, that's why they are called "agitators".

Agitators might use anything as a pretext for such encouragement. So what?

Look into the involvement of far-left groups in recent small riots at immigration protests.

If you've got an argument to make, I'll let you marshal your own evidence and make it, instead.


And, those who take the line you do are basically admitting that we've been invaded and settled and have no choice but to surrender.

Strange that you should say "admitting" here rather than "arguing", suggesting that you believe that its true, but that you pursue a different policy response only because you wish not to acknowledge the truth.

But I think you're wrong, anyway; its not about being "invaded" and "Settled" and "surrender". Its about recognizing that we have had, and still have, a flawed and failed policy which makes it unnecessary difficult to keep out those we really need to keep out individually, and makes it more difficult than necessary to mitigate the costs associated with the level of immigration of persons who aren't individually undesirable. And, recognizing the flaws in and failures of that policy, further recognizing that we need to correct them so that we can be more effective at keeping out those who are personally undesirable, and more effective at mitigating the cost to Americans of the level of immigration.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 26, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

This was inevitable.

Conservatives are predominately white racists and elitists who were just longing for some issue that would allow them to rant against people of color while disguising it as something else.

Just as inevitably, they miscalculated.

Their refusal to demand the same level of border security with Canada, where there is ample evidence that terrorists have actually crossed or attempted to cross as opposed to Mexico where there is no evidence of similar activity, paints them as the liars and racists that they are.

Not to mention the decades of illegal immigration without any wave of terrorists from Mexico or even a hint of such or any evidence whatsoever that Mexican workers represent even the remotest threat to the American economy or our national security.

Minutemen = Minutenazis (they'll go fascist on you in less than a minute, if you give them the chance)

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 26, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Look into the involvement of far-left groups in recent small riots at immigration protests.

I looked. It turned out to be a bunch of shit. Now what?

Posted by: FlyAwayCase on September 26, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know how good you are at math, but a rise from 10,502.40 to 11,150.22 is not "almost 30%."

Hey Stefan, c'mon quit nitpicking. 6%, 30% almost the same.

and making 3,382 dollars on a 10,000 investment over five years. Hey almost the same as making $614.

Posted by: snicker-snack on September 27, 2006 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly