Not all Republicans are Ogonowski Republicans (at least, the Ogo that emerged once Dustin Olson came in as campaign manager) when it comes to immigration. And it’s tearing the party apart.
The Republican Party’s highest-ranking Latino official abruptly resigned Friday, marking the latest casualty in the GOP’s bitter internal fight over immigration and dealing another setback to President Bush’s years-long effort to court Latino voters. The announcement by Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida that he was quitting as general chairman of the Republican National Committee came after he had expressed frustration over the tenor of the immigration debate within his party….
The White House had engineered the ascent of the Cuban-born Martinez over the objections of many conservatives as part of an effort to repair the GOP’s image among Latinos. That image suffered when Republican congressional leaders and conservative activists stymied administration-backed measures that would have created a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants….
Martinez’s frustration was well known. He had warned that a continuation of the GOP’s 2006 tactics — airing anti-illegal immigration television ads that many believed used ethnic stereotypes — could doom the party’s hope of competing for the country’s fastest-growing voter bloc. Those tactics, strategists said, erased many of the gains achieved by Bush and his chief political advisor, Karl Rove, who had been assiduously courting Latinos since Bush’s first run for Texas governor in 1994…. “I believe that not to play this card right would be the destruction of our party,” Martinez said in a spring interview with the Los Angeles Times. “Hispanics make up about 13% of our country, and by 2020 will be closer to 20%. It is a demographic trend that one cannot overlook.”
A while back, Charley noted that the current GOP prez gang’s near-unanimous refusal to appear at Tavis Smiley’s and Univision’s debates (other than John McCain, to his credit, who coincidentally was on Smiley’s radio show tonight) seemed likely to drive minority voters — whom Karl Rove among others had been trying to court — into the Democratic camp. One of our resident GOP boosters called Charley’s post borderline “bigotry,” and argued as follows:
Charley – your post stereotypes people to the point of bigotry … There are many black conservatives, and they tend to vote Re[p]ublican, if not Libertarian or Constitution party.
The RNC Chair IS a Hispanic – Mel Martinez – who travels the country ad[d]ressing Hispanic interest groups in their own language.
I’d say Mr. Martinez has cast his lot with Charley’s analysis.
Glad Martinez is gone. He is another Rhino like Bush, McCain, Brownback, Spector and the rest of the Globalist, Open Border, Amnesty, Traitor Republicans.
These are the Kennedy’s, Reid's, Kerry's, and Pelosi’s to name a few of the Democrat party.
Notice Brownback just bowed out of the Presidential race, another Amnesty supporter goes down. McCain is next.
For the record not all “Hispanics” support Amnesty for Illegal Aliens. That is one of the most repulsive things to read when people just assume all “Hispanics” support Illegal Immigration.
Case and point: http://dontspeakform…
“Ogonowski Republicans” as you put it, is how the majority of Americans feel when it comes to “Illegal” Immigration(love how the open border crowd calls it “Immigration”). We want the borders secured, no Amnesty/tax payer benefits for Illegal Aliens.
The Republicans that support Amnesty-Open Borders, ect as stated before are Rhinos, Corporate Republicans, Traitors. Sad part for the high profile Democrats is that they are just as bad if not worse.
As far as tearing the party apart, I would say no doubt there is a riff but it’s a minority of Republicans(Rhinos) that support Illegal Immigration which are mostly on the federal level.
The overwhelming majority of Republicans on a state and local level are in tune with the American Citizens on stopping Illegal Immigration. Look at the hundreds of local immigration enforcement laws being passed around the Country and hundreds more pending. Yea I know some of them are being challenged in court but we’ll see what happens. Enforcing the law seems like such a bad idea right? Unreal.
I’m confident the voters will take care of the Rhinos at election time that is unless God forbid an Amnesty(over my dead body) ever gets through, then the Illegal Aliens will be able to vote and I’m sure will repay these Traitors with another term in office. After all that is one of the reasons for these Amnesty bills – votes.
Whether you want to believe it or not Illegal Immigration is one of the top issues facing the Country. IMO its the number one issue.
To racists, illegal immigration and brown-skinned people are always among the top issues. But the demographic fact is, supermajority White Christian America no longer exists and even mere majority will be lost within 2 generations at most anyway.
<
p>
Actually, opinion polling shows that 68% of voters- the whole left half of the spectrum and over center to all of the bloc of (actual) moderate Republicans- sees illegals the way Democrats do. 24%- the bloc of reactionaries- are utterly opposed.
<
p>
When people with morals and integrity consider the complete situation and all the options closely, the only serious and reasonable and principled thing to do is in fact to permit illegals to obtain citizenship. The significant political question is then how difficult to make the application process.
<
p>
After the 2008 elections the opinion of reactionaries is not going to matter much anymore. There won’t be enough unendangered Republicans left in Congress to block a bill in 2009, 2011 at the latest, let alone the amendments to the bill over time.
<
p>
As for the Republican Party, all the prominent black politicians are gone- JC Watts and Michael Steele have vanished, Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes are beyond the pale. There are no prominent Republican politicians who are Native American. Of prominent Hispanic Republican politicians, Henry Bonilla bit the dust last election. Mel Martinez has no support outside the Republican baseline in Florida, and Florida will be a thinly Blue state in 2010. He’s living on borrowed time and is unlikely to survive the next election. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is in a House district that will be 50/50 in 2008, the two Diaz-Balarts have districts that will be there in 2010. We will evidently replace them with moderate-to-liberal Democrats, likely also Hispanic.
<
p>
And then, yes, the Republican Party will be the Old White Peoples’ Party. It will be a sub-40% permanent minority Party until it sheds its obsolete platform of social policies (which are unConstitutional, too), and the people who insist on them.
I see no evidence for the claim that
<
p>
<
p>
House Sen POTUS
1998: 15-8 GOP, 1-1
2000: 15-8 GOP, 2-0 Dem 49-49 GOP
2002: 18-7 GOP, 2-0 Dem
2004: 18-7 GOP, 1-1 52-47 GOP
2006: 16-9 GOP, 1-1
<
p>
So, I’m not seeing any trend that shows the Dems picking up 4 seats in the House and closing up the presidential gap. Hispanic votes is one source, but Floridian Hispanics aren’t going to be as quick to vote against the GOP due to Cubans. Perhaps Dem momentum will get some votes? I mean, they did win two House seats in 2006, even if one of ’em was a direct reaction to Foley and will almost certainly go back GOP in 2008.
<
p>
I think that the Dem POTUS candidate has a better chance of taking Florida than the House does in picking up four seats in the next two elections — before the redistricting no less, in a state who’s state House and Senate is 78-42 and 26-14 respectively.
<
p>
Bottom line: Florida’s red may lighten, but I can’t see a circumstance where the GOP entirely self-destructs in Florida. Good grief: if GOP voters hadn’t considered the GOP to have self destructed in November 2006, what’s it going to take?
…but Floridian Hispanics aren’t going to be as quick to vote against the GOP due to Cubans
<
p>
It isn’t necessary for members of an interest group to vote against the GOP. All that would be needed to benefit the Dems is that not so many members of the interest group vote for the GOP–that can be accomplished by the members not voting at all.
<
p>
That, by the way, is one of the purposes of negative campaigning.
but Cuban Hispanics make up 2.25 million Floridians, and of 1.5 million of ’em live near Miami-Dade.
<
p>
Put another way, there are three districts in Florida which have 30%+ hispanic population, both Cuban and non-Cuban. In fact, they’re all 60%-75% hispanic. Of those, all three went GOP by +17%, +18%, and +24%. Hispanics staying might be enough, although more realistically it could certainly be part of the mix necessary to flip those three seats.
<
p>
So, even if all three flipped [I don’t see it by 2010, but even if] you’ve still got to find a fourth CD to flip. And gain 5 points in the presidential race.
<
p>
Could be, but I’m not feelin’ it.
Florida was highly and intelligently gerrymandered in favor of Republicans in 2002, so it’s not quite appropriate to look at the House and state legislature seats as if they were redistricted neutrally.
<
p>
The basic national partisan trend is due to new voters mostly joining/voting Democratic, and older voters mostly Republican-voting dying or becoming unable to vote. That was 1% per year- about a shift of a million voters- during the Nineties, but was confused in ’04 by both sides “activating” a lot more voters. Republicans happened to find (what happened to be the margin) about 4 million more Republican leaners than Democrats found new and inactive Democratic leaners nationally.
<
p>
Most states were about 2% more Democratic in 2006 than in 2004, so I feel it justified to say the trend is clearly continuing. Yes, midterm vs Presidential turnout differences exist, but the trend seems evident in other numbers. In the 2008 head-to-head matchups, the present (2007) generic partisan baseline is 48% Democratic, 42% Republican. That’s three years on from 2004, in which the baselines were 45% and 45%. The average voter gets 12-15 Presidential elections max to participate in in his/her lifetime, and usually participates in less, so at least 7-8%, but probably more like 10% of the electorate in one Presidential election dies before the next one. And is replaced by new voters in their late twenties or thirties mostly. That’s really where the change in qualities of the electorate lie.
<
p>
So I add 4% shift into the 2004 numbers or 2% to the 2006 numbers for the districts. Mahoney’s then becomes 49% Democratic, and that would be why he ran last year, evidently thinking that with enough money he could weather 2008 against Negron again, and then the district would tip slightly Democratic. I think it’s not assured that Mahoney loses- he can probably do enough to buy off 2% of the vote that usually goes Republican in some way. Not that I think the DCCC preaches a gospel of 1% per year trend, but there are estimations of the kind made for close districts I’m sure.
<
p>
For 2008, of course the targets will be FL-13, Bill Young’s FL-9, and Keller’s FL-10 (iirc) will be close enough for a softening up for ’10. As for Cuban ethnic voting, Democrats are trying to put up a Cuban mayor up against one of the Diaz-Balart brothers. They’ve mostly run Cuban candidates, though minor ones, against Ros-Lehtinen iirc.
<
p>
Yes, the Florida state parties are grossly mismatched. But as we’ve seen in national elections, the pitiful state of one of the parties might delay its ascendence, but majority power in its hands at some level because the dominant Party selfdestructs does happen, and it has a remarkable ability to revive it. Furthermore, gerrymanders do a lot for the incumbent party, but around 53-54% of the popular vote the ascendent opposition party usually seems to break partisan gerrymanders enough for a majority of seats, even though the gerrymandered districts would seem capable of withstanding that percentage.
<
p>
I think Florida should and will have two strongly competing parties in a few years. That cultural boundary at roughly Orlando very much calls for Republican control north of it, and Democratic majority south of it.
<
p>
And I am guessing Florida at 51-48 for the Democratic Presidential nominee at equal turnout, but my guess is that turnout won’t be equal enough to make any firm prediction beyond “quite close”.
<
p>
The GOP hasn’t failed completely on Iraq or on ‘fighting terrorism’ yet. It may well have failed further on them a year from now.
Putting aside the poisonous, hysterical, paranoid tone of the reactionary bloc so beautifully described – and represented above, not all illegals want to be citizens.
<
p>
Actually, a large group [and without really good research, the percentage is – and will remain – unknown] are really undocumented guest workers who have the goal to work until they earn “enough money” [again, amount unknown] at which point they intend to “go home”. Having a visible, legal route for folk in this group to come, work, and go home would save lives [too many die trying to come work] and improve security because these undocumented guest workers would become documented guest workers, be visible, be more difficult for unscrupulous folk like the owners of the Michael Bianco leather factor to pray on, and be able to report crimes and be “tracked” like eveyone else, including to pay taxes openly. You pay for your temporary worker’s visa, maybe monthy payments, have a way to sign up for it at American embassies, starve the “coyote trade” in smuggling humans, etc.
<
p>
For the group who want to come permanently, have a visible, sensible rate taking into account where [what countries] have folk who want to come, etc.
<
p>
For the folk already here, use sociology and econometrics to design an appropriate pathway which is at least revenue neutral.
<
p>
My thoughts, anyway.
<
p>
But there really are three distinct groups: undocumented temporary works who want to go home and will if the pathway to do that is cleared up; would be citizens; current permanent undocumented migrant residents who will best contribute to the fisc and the body politic with a normalized status.
be more difficult for unscrupulous folk like the owners of the Michael Bianco leather factory to pray on…
<
p>
…as far as I can tell, illegal aliens are paid at much lower hourly rates than even legal aliens. H-1B visa holders are paid at somewhat lower rates than US citizens or even green-card holders, so I suspect that my suspicion regarding illegal aliens is correct.
<
p>
But that would give companies, such as Bianco’s, that hire illegal aliens an unfair advantage when they bid on contracts. Their labor costs are much lower than those companies that don’t hire illegal aliens, so they can undercut scrupulous employers.
You have nailed it. These are examples of the typical perversion of free market principles in which an unscrupulous segment of society bends the mores of society to gain a competative leg up and then instead of society removing that unfair advantage, it is instead more inclined to alter the societies mores to offer the same unfair advantage to all takers. Things get so twisted sometimes that all we can do is laugh it off or go insane … I enjoy a good HOWL from time to time, it helps.
…apparently you are too stupid to understand that what I wrote was, succinctly stated, that those who don’t play by the rules have an unfair advantage over those who do.
<
p>
You aren’t going to seriously dispute that, are you?
I wasnt disputing it, I was agreeing with it. Read again.
…I mistakenly conflated what appeared to be the intent in your headline with your text.
I tend to ramble and my creation of “titles” is sometimes done half heartedly.
<
p>
You’re the one bringing up race here, “supermajority White Christian America” – wow if that doesn’t have racial overtones then I don’t know what does. Do I sense a little “Racism” in your statement?
<
p>
Here is Ted Hayes from “Choose Black America” marching in LA with fellow American Citizens of all races, creeds, ect.
<
p>
http://www.youtube.c…
There are a ton of other videos as well.
<
p>
Are you going to call these American Citizens “Racists” as well because they oppose Illegal Immigration even though they might not be part of the “supermajority White Christian America” as you put it?
<
p>
Notice the Illegal Aliens calling the members of “Choose Black America” Racists and every other name under the sun. Not to mention the tension that is in the air.
<
p>
For those of you who do not think Illegal Immigration is a big issue please look at a few of these videos and picture yourself in the middle of this everyday.
<
p>
For those of you that want Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, are you sure you want some of these people to become American Citizens?
<
p>
Look at how they are treating American Citizens in these videos. If you look close enough you can figure out which Countries their loyalty is too. Hint its not the USA.
Uh, thank you for the perfect demonstration of the semiintelligent chauvinist turn-the-liberal-argument-on-itself tactic, but it doesn’t work.
<
p>
For the compelling demonstration of ‘supermajority White Christian America’, I present to you: the Republican Party. I’m sorry, my objection to the Republican Party has everything to do with its well-proven collective idiocy, which as a liberal I do not ascribe to skin color or ethnic heritage.
<
p>
Sure I’ll call racists racists, but I don’t take those that are powerless as seriously as those that do have power and a demonstrated tendency to murder and terrorism (by which I mean the ‘Minutemen’, and their KKK forbearers).
<
p>
If you think those Latino demonstrators are seditionists or secessionists, why don’t you go and report them? Why not get them arrested and charged with treason or rebellion, with conspiracy to deprive you of your rights?
<
p>
Thank you, but I lived in L.A. for a long time. The Latino people I knew were better citizens by behavior and intentions and desires than the same class of white folks, there or here.
<
p>
As for badly behaved and selfish wrongheaded idiots and unprosecuted felons being U.S. citizens…I’ve been to meetings of Young Republicans. And just plain Republicans. We allow them to be citizens in large numbers, so the bar is actually set very low indeed.
Describe their horns.
Raj, you got me. Thanks for the correction.
…whose meaning mirrors that of RINO.
Salute the Danish Flag – it’s a Symbol of Western Freedom
Your fanatacism is truly scary. It used to be that opposing civil rights was the wedge issue and code for Republicans. Now it’s immigration that is motivating the “silent majority.” It’s all a distraction.
<
p>
The immigration issue can be resolved logically. Patrol the borders and provide disincentives for employers. But its not in the Republican’s interest to do so.
<
p>
So much for elevating the debate. If your President and party were so disgraced and so dysfunctional, however, wouldn’t you change the subject?
OK, I’ve taken enough of this Republican’s are racist bullshit, and I’m not taking it anymore. People who do not support illegal immigration are not Racists. And what we are talking about here is illegal immigration not legal immigration. A fact that you on the left cannot seem to differentiate. The people I know who hate illegal immigration the most are often the latino people who have immigrated here legally. That is my personal experience.
<
p>
Perhaps Martinez is out because the internal polling of the Ogonowski campaign showed that a majority of people are upset with illegal immigration and he is for amnesty. Perhaps the Ogonowski campaign gave the Republican party a wakeup call?
<
p>
The only party I know of that has a former Grand Wizard of the KKK in a leadership position in the Democratic Party.
<
p>
The only party I know of that wants to keep poor black people on plantations(housing projects) addicted to the teat of their masters(welfare) is the Democratic Party.
<
p>
The only party I know of that believes we should use race as a basis for admission to colleges and who gets which job is the Democratic Party.
<
p>
It is the Democratic Party that is institutionally racist. Not the Republican Party and I’m damn tired of it being portrayed the other way.
…provide a reference for your assertion of fact that
<
p>
The only party I know of that has a former Grand Wizard of the KKK in a leadership position in the Democratic Party. (emphasis added)
<
p>
I’ve never seen a primary reference that suggested that Robert Byrd was a Grand Wizard.
<
p>
Aside from that, the alignment of the three parties in the US, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Dixiecrats has changed substantially since Nixon’s Southern Strategy beginning in the early 1970s. Prior to Nixon’s Southern Strategy, the Dixiecrats caucused with the Democrats–the Dems paid them off. During and after Nixon’s Southern Strategy, the Republican discovered that they could pay off the Dixicrats and get them to caucus with them. And that’s exactly what happened.
<
p>
You might want to pretend that the Republican party and Democratic party of today is the same as it was decades ago, but, some of us know better.
He was the exalted cyclops of his local chapert. So he wasn’t grand wizard, but he did lead a chapter, a chapter that probably lynched blacks, but the Democrats still exalt him today.
… David Horowitz as a ‘reformed liberal’ why shouldn’t people be happy about a reformed racist. It’s illuminating to read latter life comments from George Wallace on his racism as well.
…When I was in grad school in the early 1970s, in the lab in which I was doing my grad work there was a black grad student. This was at Ohio State.
<
p>
During the 1972 election campaign, I asked him who he would vote for (not necessarily who he favored). He responded “George Wallace.” This fellow was not stupid, and I was rather taken aback. I asked him why. He responded quite directly: With Wallace he he knew exactly where he stood. With the Republicans and Democrats, no.
<
p>
Regarding Horowitz, it is fairly obvious from his career that he is nothing more than what the Germans call a “Wendehals.” I know what that means, but there isn’t a direct translation into english. What it refers to is a person who can change his point of view on a moment’s notice (“Wende” change, “Hals” neck). In the 1960s and early 1970s, Horowitz, as editor of Ramparts magazine, turned out tomes of left wing crap, when it was fashionable to do so. In about 1973, he did a sudden switch, and started turning out tomes of right wing crap, when it became fashionable to do so.
Just a sitting democrat who yearned for the good old days when he could get together “with the boys” and string up some of those uppity black males (euphemist substitution for the N word). Yep—-a good solid democrat from West Virginia. Ya gotta love it.
Both the Republicans and Democrats have former Kluxers in their ranks.
<
p>
The thing that steams the Republicans is that the Democrats have apologized for their mistakes.
Can you name a Republican official with a KKK past?
<
p>
Because if there was one, we’d hear about it every hour on the hour. And please note, the GOP repudiated David Duke and backed his challanger.
… is yoked with its history of motivating blocks of voters by inflaming their passions against some sub-class or sub-culture or other. The telling point in this newest case is the magnitude of the problem. List the nations biggest problems and immigration shouldn’t really even show up on the radar compared to record deficits, war, long list of foreign policy conundrums, the economy and so on. Of these immigration certainly has an effect on the economy, but it is hardly the most pressing issue. The truth is if everyone ignored the immigration problem for the next four years, the economy wouldn’t suffer much for it. Hell even employment wouldn’t suffer much. More of the same, employment and economy-wise is undesirable more for reasons of income disparity (again-illegals certainly have an effect on this, but it is negligible compared to the impact on disparity of the outrageous incomes of CEOs and tax advantages of capital gains as opposed to income).
<
p>
So why the fanning of the flames on this particular issue? Because it seems to motivate some blocks of voters. What’s behind why this particular issue upsets these people more than arguably much more important and impactfull issues? While individually your mileage will certainly vary, but across the whole block of motivated voters, racism isn’t a far fetched theory.
<
p>
The GOP game plan has always been too make people angry or fearful (Reagan’s reelection campaign of 1984 is probably the one recent exception). The trick is to always make the anger socially acceptable. States rights not defending state backed institutional racism,… Culture wars or Religious rights, not state backed intolerance toward gays,… Supporting or not supporting troops conflated from supporting or not supporting policy. Its really not too far of a stretch to imagine Illegal immigration as opposed to racism.
On Mel Martinez:
<
p>
While it is nice to blame his resignation on immigration he might also have resigned just to save face since they are gonna get a big whoopin next year, a near fillibuster proof Democratic Senate, house gains, and maybe a Democratic President. So he might have resigned just to avoid getting blamed for a loss thats really out of his control and used immigration as a cover.
<
p>
That said the Bush-Kennedy-McCain immigration reform plan was a flawed overly committee drawn proposal that would not have sensibly solved the problem, that said I think its important that the Democratic Party embrace latinos especially when the GOP won’t. As our experience with the black vote shows us, simply because we are not Republicans is not always enough, sometimes we need to be a proactive alternative and not merely the non racist one. I say that we should embrace Latinos, if we were to carry the Hispanic vote in four states (NV, CO, AZ, NM) that makes up for losing Florida or Ohio in the general so the math is really persuasive.
<
p>
Also as a sidenote to Mr. Lynne Reagan ran a positive campaign in 84′ Mondale was honest but obviously pessimistic and thats why he lost. Reagan won with “Morning in America” not “Illegals will kill your family”. Similarly we should not be as honest as Mondale about our tax policies. (Talking to you John Edwards!)
But it is laughable to assert that latent racism does not play a role in the immigration debate and in how the GOP runs campaigns.
<
p>
The current strengths of the GOP are a legacy of the Southern Strategy, which was defined by Nixon advisor Kevin Philips in 1970:
<
p>
<
p>
Former RNC head Ken Mehlman said in 2005:
<
p>
<
p>
The legacy of this strategy is that the GOP has become dependant on the votes of racists and those people shape GOP positions on immigration.
<
p>
One only need to look at very recent history, like the refusal of GOP candidates to participate in debates sponsored by Travis Smiley or Univision this year to see that appeals to racism are alive and well. The use of racially coded imagery in ads against Harold Ford and the defense of Senator Allen’s calling a brown skinned man a “macacca” are only two other examples that expose the veiled use of racism in trying to get votes.
<
p>
Of course, there are racists in the Democratic party as well, but unlike the GOP, the Democrats have not become dependant on them.
<
p>
So, you may not be racist, or even a nativist, but your party has sadly become dependant on people who are, which is why accusations of racism in your party have merit and your protestations ring hollow.
Thomas Schaller, in his recent book, which rakes through a lot of statistics notes that the Republican Party’s appeal in the South is particularly race-based. At one time, he suggests, it was necessary to communicate this in coded ways, but it’s increasingly less necessary.
<
p>
Arguing with conservatives about this is always a bit of an odd experience because they tend to recoil from arguments based on ideology, sociology, polling, and other big systemic things. In my experience, they tend to reduce it to individual culpability and we end up with the War of the Anecdotes.
<
p>
In the case of Senator Byrd, one might return to context: the Dixiecrats switched from being Democrats to being Republicans in the 60s and 70s. And it was not because the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln.
Some have persuasively suggested that the transit of Dixiecrats from the Democratic party to the Republican party began in 1928, when the Dems nominated Catholic Al Smith as its candidate for presitdent.
<
p>
The Southern Strategy came into fruition in the early 1970s because Nixon discovered that the Dems had bought off the Dixiecrats, and that he could lure the Dixiecrats away from the Dems merely by matching what the Dems were paying. All of this through the federal budget of course, and much of it via the “defense” budget and the agricultural welfare budget.
Maybe so. Ogo lost, pretty convincingly, which is exactly what Martinez has been warning about. Sure, Dems would’ve loved a 20-point blowout. But that was never realistic in that district. Fact is that, in a conservative district, in a match-up between two political neophytes who both benefited greatly from name recognition based on compelling family history, the immigration card doesn’t appear to have significantly helped Ogo. As has been documented here, Niki Tsongas pretty much did as well or better than Deval Patrick throughout the district. Except in Dracut.
<
p>
As for the Democratic party being “institutionally racist,” that of course is silly. Which is not to say that the Dems couldn’t do better. In the very early days of BMG, I called on Harry Reid and other Democrats to “clean up their act on Clarence Thomas.” But I find it very difficult to argue with Martinez’s (and Charley’s) original thesis, which is that the more times prominent Republicans blow off invitations from Univision and Tavis Smiley, and the more they try to whip up irrational fear of illegal immigration (as distinct from trying to generate a reasoned discussion about it), the easier the Democrats’ jobs become in 2008. And you haven’t said anything to call that view into question.
Way to prove you’re not a bigot by comparing the residents of public housing and the government to slave masters. I take it you fashion yourself as a “compassionate conservative”.
<
p>
Illegal immigration was not issue until after ’04. It’s just a repub wedge issue just like gay marriage was. It’s successful because it is marketed in a racist fashion to appeal to a bigoted base. That’s why the White Supremacist-tied, David Duke-supported Numbersusa is so popular. That’s why Republicans in Utah think that “Satan’s minions want to eliminate national borders and do away with sovereignty.” That’s why a voter in New hampshire asked John McCain:
<
p>
<
p>
And forget about the right wing media: John Gibson saying white people need more babies than black people, Bill O’Reilly shocked that black people don’t ask for “mother effing iced tea”. Glenn Beck. This crap is too easy. Look at all the white supremacist groups in America – do you think any single one of them support a dem? A guarantee that they favor a Republican.
<
p>
You may not be a bigot, eabo. I don’t know you and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But based on your rabid, simplistic and unrealistic on illegal immigration, it’s clear your sensibilities are apparently formed by bigoted media personalities and racist policies.
<
p>
But … There are many arguments on the con side regarding unchecked immigration, legal and otherwise. You tend to do your pro side a great disservice when you try to lump any argument favoring restrictions on unchecked immigration as being blatently rascist and of no merit.
You sir, are guilty of stereotyping.
The people pushing millions of deportations who have steeled their hearts against the human side effects are suffering from some defect of humanity. Racism seems like a good fit.
Again you are generalizing. I have heard of numerous suggestions for suitable ways to address the situation. Mass deportations are at one extreme and removal of any border is at the other. There are a wide array of remedies in between, yet these tend to be ignored and all debate is focused on the extreme elements. Kind of a common tactic these days but it wont win many converts to attempt to brand them through some false association process.
…that’s the thing, the debate should be about reform and how we deal with the 12M illegal immigrants here. The republicans control the debate and they are selling their base a false bill of goods. Any one with an ounce of critical thinking skills realizes the fence idea is useless and deporting everyone will cost +$200 Billion.
<
p>
If the republicans have reasonable arguments for their immigration position, it’s their fault for overshadowing those arguments with the racist fear mongering (a la Ogo/Eabo and SCHIP). It seems to me they don’t have any real answers, they’d simply rather placate their base with an unrealistic position while personally happy to do nothing as long as they keep winning elections (kind of like the Dems and the War).
“The republicans control the debate? Its THEIR fault for overblowing the argument with racist fear mongering ala SCHIP? THEY would rather placate THEIR base with unrealistic position”
<
p>
I wouldnt care to count how many times I read the terms “they” and “them” in comparison to “us” and “we”. This isnt a football game and noone wins as long as BOTH sides frame the debate as some sporting event.
This summers failed immigration reform should serve as a wake up call to EVERYONE on this issue.
It is not unreasonable for people to expect that their borders are maintained. While the great wall of china is foolish, posting a few national guard units someplace other than Baghdad might just not be a bad idea.
It was unreasonable for the democratic majority WHO ARE IN CONTROL OF THE DEBATE to refuse to consider the ammendment which would assure that progress in securing the border would be made before citizenship procedured could commense this time unlike the countless times before it.
It was unreasonable for republicans to insist on breaking the familial chain migration pattern and thus seperate families and create this bizzare hoop jumping process complete with 5000$ bounty that no sane person would ever pay.
The compromise should have been made by BOTH sides in order to produce a bill that everyone wanted but instead congress didnt insist on the points that we wanted to see in order to get away with not compromising on the other points we also wanted. Congress gave us a piece of crap legislation that noone wanted and then directed us to play “us” versus them with this issue until the second half of the game begins.
Kool Aid is a popular beverage of both sides of the equation.
is that the pacifist feels pain. I would not expect nor advise Democrats to sit and take all the abusive rhetoric thrown at them in the course of pushing “the immigration issue”.
It's dishonest to blame both sides equally for the inflamatory nature of this divisive and largely manufactured debate. As an issue, immigration would not even be on the radar if not for the incessant howling of republican congressmembers and right wing media. They put this issue on the radar. They demanded that something be done, and they rejected the bipartisan compromise bill that was put forth as a response.
The objective is to keep the issue alive at all costs. The purpose is to keep the divisive rhetoric in play to cleave blocs of voters and to throw red meat to the conservative base.
I don't think anyone here has such a poor short term memory that they cannot recall how this issue was introduced into the public discourse.
There are some parts of the country where the demographic changes resulting from immigration have been substantial or where social services have been put under strain.
<
p>
Of course, that’s not to say that the GOP, conservative talk radio, and the Resentment Lobby generally haven’t exaggerated the problems and made what problems there are harder to address in a humane and rational matter. So I generally agree with your sentiment.
The best way to get people not to come here for jobs is not to hire them. Republicans do not push that solution because it would split off (even more of) their business base.
<
p>
So instead the GOP right pushes an ineffective response requiring millions of deportations that no sane person would implement.
<
p>
It’s just red meat for their base and that’s all.
One strong argument often advanced is that we have immigration laws in this country and they should be enforced. That’s true: we do have immigration laws.
<
p>
What I find interesting is that these laws are relatively recent as a historical matter. For most of our history, we have had what today would be close to, “open borders,” for most people (various minority groups the tragic exceptions). The Border Patrol, for example, didn’t even exist until 1924. Passports as a standard form of identification for citizens were introduced around the same time.
<
p>
For most of our history, if you wanted to come to America, you came. That system worked out very well: it powered this country to enormous growth and success at the turn of the last century — from a relatively minor small state to the largest economy in the world.
<
p>
It may be that the current “controlled” immigration regime will in time be seen as an anomaly in our immigration history: whose interests is it serving?
For most of our history, particularly the pre 1924 era you refer to, the bulk of this continent was virtualy uninhabited. With todays population density one can only wonder at your urge to make such a correlation.
the United States ranks 146th in population density, right below Madagascar and just ahead of Estonia.
<
p>
Yeah yeah, Alaska skews the numbers. Even if you remove Alaska’s land area from tUSA [and implicitly assume that all Alaskans move to the lower 49], America shoots up to 140th, between Guinea and Eritrea.
<
p>
The US has loads of open space. It’s worth noting that lots of states where hispanics are arriving have low densities:
<
p>
[1 == New Jersey == most dense US state]
<
p>
6 New York: 401.9
8 Florida: 296.4
12 California: 217.2
14 Virginia: 178.8
17 North Carolina: 165.2
18 Georgia: 141.4
28 Texas: 79.6
35 Oklahoma: 50.3
36 Arizona: 45.2
37 Colorado: 41.5
43 Nevada: 18.2
45 New Mexico: 15
<
p>
Note that there’s loads of room in lots of those states, technically speaking. But they’ll all live in the cities you say? Well, even so, few of those places have cities with population densities anywhere near NYC, and NYC is doing just fine.
<
p>
The problem is not one of space, it’s one of tolerance.
To quote from your comment …
<
p>
“The US has loads of open space. It’s worth noting that lots of states where hispanics are arriving have low densities”
<
p>
Amazing. How did your commentary about controlled immigration get diverted to one focused on hispanics?
Ah … yes, I forgot. Some people are fixated on the racial elemets of the debate.
Any-hoo. Ethnicity aside, tolerance is best viewed from behind the wheel of an automobile stuck out in traffic on I-93. A few weeks of that will cure your need to question the wisdom of your population density profiles. Or perhaps you are one more accustomed to squezing into a car on the T.
Last I checked we werent living in Estonia, nor do I beleive any of us wish to be.
As an old school environmentalist I was taught that we as a nation had surpassed sustainable population levels in 1970.
Last I checked our population has doubled since then.
And lo and behold look at the foretold prophecies that have come true, commodities in short supply, the food supply comprimised, power grids strained, the environment shattered.
And still there are those that do not see the forest through the trees.
my comment was about population density, and how relative to the rest of the world, America still has low density — a contrast to your post implying otherwise.
<
p>
Quit your rambling and focus. America has lots of open space. The states where a large number of immigrants are migrating too have low population densities within tUSA, which has a low population density relative to other nations.
<
p>
So, there are lots of concerns with immigration [legal and illegal], but open space is not one of them, contrary to your post to which I responded.
Maybe we are just lucky then. If you exclude both coasts, the destination of most immigrants, I imagine there is a lot of open space, from the deserts of Nevada through the rockie mountains and on to the frozen tundra of the great plains.
No wait, thats largely uninhabitable … but look at all that space up there in Canada, they must welcome unchecked immigration with open arms … Umm, no.
Hmmm … Insensative Canadians.
<
p>
http://earthobservat…
You may be, let’s use the word, “upset,” but that doesn’t make your argument. Going into a debate with a bull horn doesn’t make your voice more powerful.
<
p>
You words are telling. The true hatefulness of a segment of the Republican party and the Ogi sponsors is coming through. Too bad you can’t blame the commies any more.
<
p>
People who attribute responsibility to the Republican Party for Ogi’s loss could blame you or credit you for the results. The truth is, his positions were so vapid that he might not have gotten as close as he did by talking about his real beliefs or positions. He was clueless on most policy issues. He rotated 360 degrees on the war. That’s why you limited his debates with Tierney, discussion with unfriendly media, and even debates with Tsongas. Why not challenge her to 5 debates or more? The Dems had 23 debates! It was a calculated risk that both succeeded and didn’t succeed for Ogi. The Republicans used him as an issues stalking horse, but never believed in him enough to lend real financial support. How cynical is that?
<
p>
The real issues in this country are the war (which Bush and the Congress mangled in a real demonstration of ill planning and lack of concern for our troops), economic development (where we are losing ground in terms of growth and savvy), education (which gets surficial treatment) and the environment (which Bush never was concerned about from Day 1).
<
p>
Shame on you for pretending there’s no issue but immigration. Have you no decency Mr. Clipper?
David saying how right I am makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. That must be why we started this blog.
<
p>
… Matt Yglesias, in the context of reviewing Paul Krugman’s new book, has this to say:
<
p>
Rove tried to reach out to the Latino community, but his noise machine wouldn’t let him get away with it in the end.
<
p>
I believe the appropriate phrase is “hoist on his own petard.”
Bill himslef may back Obama – but the millions of ‘Cosby Republicans’ are less sanguine. From Booker Rising in 2006, and many more recently.
We wre discussing this on Poltico more than a month ago, and I had heard about it even before that. You’ll be disappointed to learn, David, that the leading candidate to replace him is…the now moribund Michael Steele.
<
p>
Re – the Tavis Smiley invite – it made me ashamed to support PBS. First, after the Democrat debate, they didn’t even have a GOP one scheduled. THEN, when pressed to schedule one, PBS put it on the LAST DAY of fundraising for the quarter, even though EVERY candidate told PBS they had long scheduled major committments for that day. The candidates asked PBS to reschedule for one week – and PBS refused, given the demands of putting out ‘The Incredible Mrs. Pritchard’ and ‘Independent Lens’ stories on why all Republicans are butchers. Like Nancy Pelosi, they picked a date too late to respond – and then trumpet the veto instead of working things out. Typical Democrat obstructionism.
<
p>
As far as racism goes – every terrorist who has entered the country has come from Canada. THAT is a border which needs patrolling for illegal immigrants.
I hadn’t heard about the PBS scheduling fiasco… and that does sound like a legit gripe.
<
p>
As for the veto, if you’re referring to SCHIP, your comment is crap. The House GOP leadership indicated that they would not be supporting any increase in SCHIP from the get-go, and were therefore not interested in negotiating a good bill. The Senate GOP took a different approach, and negotiated the bill down 30%, reduced the scope of people eligible for the funding, etc. Amazing what happens when one works to compromise instead of digging in one’s heels. The House GOP turned down a chance to work on SCHIP. That’s their fault and their burden for the 2008 election.
The eve of program expiration?
<
p>
You are correct – the House did say it would not support expansion, only renewal. The Senate voted for a modest renewal. So when the bill passed it was vetoed – as promised – because it had the larger expansion thanks to Mme. Pelosi. Who spent the month of September working of Rush Limbaugh condemnations. And let the program expire.
<
p>
Why not a vote for renewal, and THEN negotiate the size of expansion? THAT could have been done mid-spetember, but she chose not to.
about Pelosi’s tactics (which resulted in a bill that large majorities of both houses agreed to) strikes me as utterly hilarious — since I don’t recall hearing you calling out Denny Hastert and Tom DeLay for their far, far more egregious messing with the rules. You haven’t got a leg to stand on with this one, and you know it. IOKIYAR, I guess.