Cleansing the "Base," Reconstituting the GOP

That's it. I'm lost for words...

I blew out all the circuits? I thought Rudy did a great job the other day describing (in Lincoln's words) the people who are "Americans." Some of the absolutists, including some of the TH worthies, don't fit the definition.

There is a lot going on in politics. Why did some of the strong conservatives in America (Kyl, Chambliss, Issacson, Graham, Bobby Inglis) basically support the Immigration Reform? Because they believe the Republican Party is a dead duck otherwise.

I'll come to your site in a few minutes.

steve maloney
ambridge, pa

The reason why the base is so much more noisy and dominant now is that the GOP lost other groups, most notably the so-called "Reagan Democrats"--the Northern and Midwestern urban ethnics who voted for Reagan on the issues of the economy and foreign policy.

But polls are showing that due to Iraq and the high price of energy and health care, the GOP no longer commands the public's trust on foreign policy and the economy. That has left the only remaining support for the GOP to the hard-core nativist and social conservative base. And they've virtually taken over the GOP by default.

Thus, the answer to widening the appeal of the GOP is not to purge the social conservative base but to create a winning message on foreign policy and economic policy so that people who are not social conservatives have a reason to join the GOP. And that can't happen as long as the GOP is committed to the Iraq War. Regardless of whether you support the Iraq War, politically it's an albatross around the GOP's neck that is a constant reminder of the incompetent mismanagement of this war. Even McCain admits it was mismanaged.

After the election of 2004, the party affiliation was about equal between Republicans and Democrats (within a percent). Before the election of 2006, the Democrats had a 10-point edge! They got some of the edge from Republicans switching to Dem. and some from Independents registering (or affiliating themselves with) Democrats. It was one of the darndest switches in American history! It was shown in the election, where we won just about squat, except in TN, where the Republican Senate candidate (Corker) spent $12 million of his own money. We can sugarcoat this any way we want, but it is terrible news for Republicans. A number of "really safe" Republican district went Democratic (including Foley and a few other crooks). In PA, we had a Senator (Santorum) who started out at 40%, spent $27 million, and ended at 41%. We lost Senate seats (VA) that haven't had Democratic Senators in a generation. The "base" is in denial about nearly everything I've said, but it's mostly a matter of easily available statistics -- not my "opinion."

6I agree with about 60% of what SteveL said. The issue is that in politics you can't say, "This is our philosophy. Take it or leave it." They will leave it, trust me. You have to say, "What do you want?" You have to go deeply into the question and find out what they "really" want, shich is usually security and a better life for them and their kids. That are not unreasonable desires. It does take individual effort, but people also have to feel that their efforts are not in vain.

The War issue -- I've always supported GWB on it -- is a terribly complicated issue. TV wars are impossible to fight effectively. In World War II -- four years into the war -- there was a big debate about whether Life magazine could show STILL photos of some of the dead Americans on D-Day.

General Robert E. Lee at Fredericksburg to his generals: "it is a good thing war is so terrible, else we should love it too much."

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have NOTHING in common with the Marines and soldiers in Iraq. The military might as well be Martians. Thousands of years ago the Roman legions had a line that went, "It is sweet and proper to die for one's country." Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. Every soldier has an element of that. The sentiment would absolutely horrify Pelosi and Reid. I don't know a lot of Latin, but I memorized that.

The Kentucky National Guard woman who won the Silver Star has absolutely nothing in common with Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, or any of the Democratic gals in Congress. Nothing, nothing, nothing. There is one woman veteran in Congress, Heather Wilson, R. of NM.

You hear the widows of soldiers (in Pittsburgh) and elsewhere standing up at their husband's funerals and making fiery patriotic speeches. Don't look for one from Nancy.

I have been saying for weeks that it isn't the GOP that has to prove that they can be trusted with the illegal immigration issue...it's the so called "base".

I loved your take that Rudy and the other candidates may not want the votes of those who won't accept anyone less than perfect--and who will dance to their tune.

Excellent!

those senators truly believe that we need to have some kind of border control...and they believed the "base" when it said it wanted a fence and a method of tracking illegals.

So they gave them that...and hefty fines to the employers and just about everything else.

But they learned that the absolutes want something they can never get...a Berlin type wall, deportation of 5% of the population, refusal of medical care and troops on the border with orders to shoot.

America will NEVER tolerate that...you know it, I know it...and I heard it in Kyl's voice when he finally got it.

We could have had a great starter bill but the Dems played their absolutist card, knowing that it wouldn't be enough for the absolutes on the Right.

The question isn't why is the solid conservative Senators supporting this bill...it's why did the Dems let it go thru...

To get America's attention OFF the fact that they had to cave in on the funding to the trooops....they traded our extremes to silence THEIRS.

(The above brilliant analysis courtesy of my Tory Business partner).

Sanity, you and I may never met in the flesh -- this side of Heaven -- but you truly are a special human being, one who certainly WILL make it to Heaven. (I may have to serve "probabation" first, but I intend to make it also "in the fullness of time.") In the debate, when Rudy (and McCain) took off after the Democrats on national security and other matters, I thought: "There, those two guys have got it right."

I think it's important to know what politics can do and what it can't. I don't think we can do anything right in life if we can't put ourselves in the shoes of other people -- in this case, people trying to get out of totally intolerable situations in countries south of the border.

(maybe a 10th or so) of those opposed to the bill want what you are saying here..."But they learned that the absolutes want something they can never get...a Berlin type wall, deportation of 5% of the population, refusal of medical care and troops on the border with orders to shoot."

But most who are opposed, the VAST MAJORITY of those opposed, want 2 simple things.

1) Proof that border enforcement will actually be attempted this time.

2) Some sort of tracking that is tamper proof.

I can only speak for myself, but in talking here and around townhall, MOST of those opposed to this bill (including Hugh) would accept AMNESTY IF they knew that the border would be enforced after this.

But Border enforcement laws are on the books from 86 and they have never been enforced, a border fence was on the books in the last bill THAT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW, and almost nothing has been done about it.

What I am asking for, and not seeing this bill produce, is some sort of verifiable security before the Z Visas and benefits come into effect. The whole wall? No, that is too much time passed as you have pointed out many times. But some of the wall and a realistic id card, so we have some evidence that they are going to follow through. Trent Lott says "after 35 years, don't you trust me to do the right thing?" Theproblem is that on this issue, there are divided loyalties. The Wall Street Journal Republicans want a pool of inexpensive labor. They like the system as it is, because they can pay under the table and avoid taxes and oversight. The congress who is pushing this bill wants to satisfy them more than any other constituent because thats where the campaign money comes from. So my solution for the WSJ crowd is simple, once we have a secure border, or are at least showing progress in heading that way, the next step is to severely streamline the legal immigration path. We want people to come to America, we are not xenophobic. Is it immoral or nativist to want to know their names and do a criminal background check? Thats it. I know that the new homes being constructed in California need a massive number of people to fill the jobs. Most of them will be immigrants. The reason that certain companies use illegals is because they are available and legal immigration involves so much red tape. So cut the red tape, and let them hire the right way. Some companies use illegals because they can pay them much less,and because they are illegal, they can't complain or they might be punished. Streamlining legal immigration as a part of this will hold them accountable to meet minimum wage and other laws, and give the workers rights.

When people asked for border security IMPROVEMENT first, then discuss and vote in these other parts, they were lumped in with the nativists, some of whom are anti-Hispanic, by the words of President Bush and McCain, and much of the Republican leadership. They tried to push this through quickly to avoid the arguements, and tried to say that we need to accept it as is, that changes would ruin it, so we ought to just go with what they say. But what they say is the same sort of thing they have been saying since 86. Here are the laws, here are the plans, trust us on the enforcement. We have heard that twice before, and it hasn't happened. So then, their implication was that if you oppose this bill, you are nativist and xenophobic. Tell me, how did that help the debate in any way?

If you want to write me off as clueless, or write me off as one of the nativists, thats fine, I won't come here and debate with those who question my sincere motives. I would accept this bill if they did the following things to it:

1) A certain amount of border fence (Whatever is feasible, I am not an expert, but I want to see effort) must be built in 6 months or the z visas and other provisions for regularization will not happen

2) A certain more amount of border fence must be built in 1 year and the tamper proof IDs must be created, or the bill is void, and the congress must start over.

3) At the 1 year mark, if conditions are met and thebill kicks in, a sreamlined method of legal immigration must be debated, agreed upon, and enacted.

Am I asking for too much here?

Wil, you and Bruce are wonderful. You provide me with an infinite variety of great material.
I will spend this weekend (and maybe beyond) responding to you guys.

Just a point or two: It's not the WSJ. Wal-Mart provides low-priced goods ("all the time") and hires (largely) low-priced labor. They employ 1.8 million people. (In my parents' youth, the company didn't exist.)

The Wal-Mart stores are packed -- and so are the stores of their main imitator, Target. They are not packed with editorial writers from the WSJ. People in the U.S. pay three bucks for gas, low for world standards, and the country seems to be undergoing a collective nervous breakdown. Just double those prices at Wal-Mart if you want to see Congressman Waxman go apopletic.

Who's going to pick those grapes for George Will's fine wines? Who's going to spread manure around his prize roses? Who's going to make the beds and clean the toilets at his four-star hotels? Who's going to clean Paris Hilton's dreck, or paint her toenails? It's not going to be me, or you, or anybody we know.

Suppose, GWB stood up and said, "Hey, we're doing a 'Buy American' program. It will double the prices you pay for Cheerios and everything else you buy, but it will make things better for CERTAIN Americans." There would be a revolution. (In my case, it would affect me a lot less than most people, but it would still hurt.)

I'm not a big-time economic conservative. I confess occasionally that I don't like rich people generally. I support free markets because the alternative stinks.

If we can't compete on costs and prices, our economy goes into decline. People lose their jobs, at Wal-Mart and eventually at the Wall Street Journal.

Wil, meditate on that perception is reality line. Linda Chavez is not a stupid person, and she's certainly not anti-conservative. It's her peception that much of the hostility to immigrants is anti-Hispanic. I hear people tell me that perception is NOT reality. Tell that to the voting booth. Are Democrats really going to switch over to the Republicans because we killed the immigration bill? I fear just the opposite is going to happen.

I support the WSJ on this issue, even though I might be the poorest person in America that reads WSJ editorials!

I admit there are serious problems with the far-Left "base" of the Democrats. Most of them think GWB did everything but fly the planes on 9/11. They have their counterparts on the Right.

More later . . .

I am not talking about low (5-10 dollars per hour) wages like Wal-Mart, Target and others pay (Incidently, my wife worked one of those "low paying Target jobs for about 6 months while I was working as farm labor, extra help at a feed store, substitute teaching, and milking dairy goats to support our family when I got out of the military and was searching for a teaching job. In fact, most of the 10 years I have been married, I have worked a second job such as delivering pizzas in order to afford to buy a home in California. I have never refused to do any unpleasant kind of work, nor would I if that were required of me) I am talking about constructon contractors, farms, and others who hire people under the table, then pay them $3-5 per hour without paying into SS or Medicare to artificially cheapen their cost of labor.

With me, winning elections is important, but its far more important to do the right thing. And all these people picking grapes, cleaning hotel rooms and such that you mention, I stated clearly that there is a dearth of basic labor, and that we should bring them in via a LEGAL system so that we know who they are. Under a legal system, they get rights that they right now do not have. Under a legal system, we can check out their basic background before they come in so we know if they have a criminal past. But for the legal system to expand and encompass them, the illegal system must be shut down. And this is why enforcement must begin first, not vaguely someday.

I absolutely agree that we should know exactly who's in the country and where they are. It's not like the days of Huckleberry Finn, when he could go off to "the territories" and get lose. If you have some friends or family around who still have the "old" Social Security cards, note that on them it says, "Not to be used for purposes of identification." One reason for that is our older legislators didn't want anything resembling a national identity card. I took French a long time ago, but one phrase I remember from France is "carte d'identite," which meant national identity card. In America traditionally, we were kind of sloppy about who came in and who stayed and whatever. On the whole, the sloppiness was a good thing. We didn't need a passport to go to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, and it worked okay. On 9/11, one of the things I shouted at my TV was "seal those borders and keep them sealed!" I wanted to do so until we got it right, which presumably would have taken about 20 years,and thus wasn't real practical. I think a tamper-proof national identity card is absolutely critical. Like the fence, it's a bad idea that might be necessary.

Interesting enough: I salute you for your willingness to do anything to support your family. You remind me of a lot of Mexicans nowadays! Put a few people in jail for paying illegals under the table, and the practice will become a lot less frequent. It is a practice known as tax fraud, and it carries a stiff penalty ($$$$$$$$$$$$). Have a great weekend.

Let's be frank here...you DO know that the bill HAD those 2 things you claim the majority of people want...a way to track the illegals and a way to enforce the unforceable laws we have. But you and that "majority" no longer believe the GOP minority, remember?

So exactly what bill would satisfy you guys since you won't back it until you have proof and they can't give you proof until the bill is passed.

It's a no win, catch 22--and now the GOP senators who really did try to make the IIA happy knows it. They will not touch this issue again.

Sanity, you raise some good points on what the bill had in it. One thing that truly bothers me is the assumption -- seemingly widely held -- that this was somehow the last time the immigration legislation could ever be considered or modified. All legislation must be seen as a work on progress. If some aspect of it doesn't work, then it should be strengthened. The fact is that any legislation, no matter how well thought out, will have defects. In the case of this bill, some people would fall through the cracks. In an elementary school with 400 students, it's difficult to keep close track of everyone. If you're dealing with 12 million people, some of them will disappear. The information on all of them will not be perfect. So, for goodness sake, find out where the legislation falls short and fix it! That's what governments are supposed to do -- not be perfect but try to get better. When human beings are dealing with other human beings, there is going to be an amount of human error. I realize this all seems self-evident, but obviously not to everybody.

On the "A-word," amnesty. I believe it was used maliciously and falsely to help crush the bill. Townhall and people like Hewitt, not in any sense a conservative, threw the A-word around to caricature the bill. They attacked John McCain, a courageous man and a patriot, unlike his critics, most of them cowardly manipulators of opinion. Throw out the "A-word" and it's like Pavlov ringing his bell and having the dogs salivate. I sincerely believe Hewitt and others like him assume the average person on TH is as dumb as a doorknob. Maybe he's right.

By the way, I hope President Bush does everything possible to keep "the fence" (our Berlin Wall) from being built. It poisons our relationships with all countries south of the border and sends a message that will damage our foreign policy for a generation. "Mr. Bush, tear down that fence." If there is a way he can stop it, he should.

steve maloney

Sanity, you raise some good points on what the bill had in it. One thing that truly bothers me is the assumption -- seemingly widely held -- that this was somehow the last time the immigration legislation could ever be considered or modified. All legislation must be seen as a work on progress. If some aspect of it doesn't work, then it should be strengthened. The fact is that any legislation, no matter how well thought out, will have defects. In the case of this bill, some people would fall through the cracks. In an elementary school with 400 students, it's difficult to keep close track of everyone. If you're dealing with 12 million people, some of them will disappear. The information on all of them will not be perfect. So, for goodness sake, find out where the legislation falls short and fix it! That's what governments are supposed to do -- not be perfect but try to get better. When human beings are dealing with other human beings, there is going to be an amount of human error. I realize this all seems self-evident, but obviously not to everybody.

On the "A-word," amnesty. I believe it was used maliciously and falsely to help crush the bill. Townhall and people like Hewitt, not in any sense a conservative, threw the A-word around to caricature the bill. They attacked John McCain, a courageous man and a patriot, unlike his critics, most of them cowardly manipulators of opinion. Throw out the "A-word" and it's like Pavlov ringing his bell and having the dogs salivate. I sincerely believe Hewitt and others like him assume the average person on TH is as dumb as a doorknob. Maybe he's right.

By the way, I hope President Bush does everything possible to keep "the fence" (our Berlin Wall) from being built. It poisons our relationships with all countries south of the border and sends a message that will damage our foreign policy for a generation. "Mr. Bush, tear down that fence." If there is a way he can stop it, he should.

steve maloney

Wil, I think "a tenth" is much, much too low a number. Opposition to immigration (of whatever stripe) has never been famous for its rational, logical content. The people most associated with anti-immigrant (anti-illegal) are not associated with reasoned opposition to the proposal -- Tancredo being one unfortunate example. Are about 5% of the American people anti-Hispanic? I'd say that's a low number.

I am opposed (philosophically) to the building of the fence for reasons I outlined above. I realize it must be built according to current law. The "guest worker" program -- 400,000 grape pickers, toilet cleaners, and bed makers -- does sound to me like a permanent underclass, and I don't like it. It would make us Americans a lesser people, and we don't need that.

The proposals you make have zero chance of being put into law (lots of security, lots of fence). So, why make them at all?

The Democrats are moving quickly to haul in the big (and growing) Hispanic vote for generations to come, and I fear you're playing right into their hands. Within a few years, the "base" will have gone on to other things, but the Hispanic memory on this issue is going to be a very long one. It will begin hurting us as early as the 2008 election.

When we start losing people like Linda Chavez, a true heroine of conservatism, it necessitates some serious re-thinking of what's going on. If we lose Linda, who exactly will we still have? Anybody?

In many ways, this looks like an awful plan to you. My point is that the next plan is going to look much, much worse, and probably will pass.

This whole thing gives new meaning to the term "Pyhrric Victory."