The R.I.N.O. press & How we got here

You have a very good understanding of human nature -- and of the toxicity of "talk radio." I mean who in Hades are these people? Most of them are very poorly informed.

Sanity (bet you guessed this): I have been in the conservative movement since the 1960s. I knew Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. and some of the other founders, including some of the geriatrics who show up on TH (William Rusher, Tom Sowell). Unforunately, most of them haven't had a new idea since the Eisenhower Administration.

I'm like the old Black woman (Dilsey) in the Faulkner novel who says, "I seen the beginning, and I seen the end." Today struck me as the end. The conservative "movement" is out of control, vindictive, self-centered, and DANGEROUS. I think that tonight even Hugh Hewitt may recognize (well, maybe) that he's done an extremely bad thing.

I mentioned the other day that a Texas poll shows John McCain leading in that state. Huh? I'm sure he is drawing a significant number of Texas businesspeople (farmers and the like), as well as Hispanic Republicans! I'm laughing as I write this.

With a Giuliani-Palin ticket the Republicans would NOT be sure losers in CA and NY. They would contest both. And where does that leave the bigots and the haters? I think it could, if we're real lucky, drive them into the abyss, or at least shut them up for a while.

The weird thing is that immigration is a lot less of a national issue than the absolutists imagine. It is big in AZ, CO, TX, and to a lesser degree, CA. But who's one of the Senators from Tancredo's CO? Ken Salazar.

Where else is it big? Not in PA, where an anti-immigration stance got Santorum nothing (except a landslide loss). Texas and CA agriculture depend heavily on immigrant labor -- period.

Your essay is wonderful. I know it took a lot of effort, and you illuminated a great deal. Here's a secret: I NEVER listen to talk radio. I listened to Limbaugh in the 90s. That was about it.

Keep up the good work. You have a faithful reader in yours truly.

Below is material from a search on Miers. there was a committee to pick judges.

I used to listen to Laura on my way to work at night. I remember the Miers thing until I got sick of it. I don't recall her having any problem with Roberts or Alito.

Bush appointed Miers as head of the search committee for candidates to replace O'Connor.

Miers' nomination was criticized from people all over the political spectrum, based on her never having served as a judge, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court Justice. Many notable conservatives vigorously criticized her nomination, and numerous conservative groups normally considered part of Bush's political base planned to mount an organized opposition campaign. Summing up the complaints from all sides that

Early one-on-one meetings between Miers and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were said to have gone poorly, and the White House considered suspending them to focus on preparation for the confirmation hearings. In an unprecedented move, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Senator Patrick Leahy also requested that Miers re-do some of her answers to the questionnaire submitted to her by the Committee, noting that her responses were "inadequate," "insufficient," and "insulting" because she failed or refused to adequately answer various questions with acceptable accuracy or with sufficient detail. Her answers also included an error on constitutional law where she mentioned a constitutional right for proportional representation which the Supreme Court had previously ruled did not exist. In addition to the demand for new questionnaire responses, the Committee repeated its request to review internal White House documents that would illustrate her experience as White House Counsel and the constitutional issues she worked on.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) stated shortly afterwards that "I think, if you were to hold the vote today, she would not get a majority, either in the Judiciary Committee or on the floor." However, Specter, the committee chairman rejected the notion that Miers' nomination was shaky. He said that most senators were waiting for the hearings before making up their mind. "There are no votes one way or another," he said on CBS' Face the Nation. On October 19, 2005, Specter and Leahy announced their intent to begin confirmation hearings for Miers on November 7, 2005.

On October 27, 2005, the White House announced that Harriet Miers had asked President Bush to withdraw her nomination.

I don't know about everyone else but I did listen to talk radio before 9/11. I notice you didn't mention Rush, we know he was big before 9/11.

Hannity, et al were there before 9/11, now if people did not listen to the hosts they would not have any "power. " They have this because people hear what they don't hear on the MSM, information.

Possibly the Miers nomination showed that hosts have the ability to decide things differently from the President. Yes we can support Bush on the WOT but that does not mean we have to go down the line with everything, does it.

This bill as written is not "reasonable illegal immigration reform" it is amnesty.

I have supported the President on the WOT down the line, but I have not supported the immigration policy of the President even before this bill, and none of the talk show hosts decided for me. He has fought more for immigration, then Social Security, the NCLB, him signing McCain/Feingold Bush has done alot of good tax cuts, judges, economy and some not so great.

Don't we all have freedom to disagree?

We certainly do have the freedom...but NOT without consequences.

This is something we learn in childhood.

Everytime someone pulls that freedom to disagree card...I wonder if they use that card with no expectations of consequences as when you wanted Peppermint to defend her conservative views with her Liberal colleagues but she felt she would risk her job...a consequence she was NOT willing to pay.

And what do you do Jevica...if your spouse, your children, your friends decide to publically criticize you?

Do you feel hurt, betrayed, abandoned?

In all your principles, is there room for support, loyalty...the kind without "buts"?

I too listened to her all the time before the Miers incident.

I also listened to other talk show hosts so I got the other side. The part that she and the NRO wasn't telling you.

It was no secret that Laura and many of the hosts were anticipating the nuclear option. They said to break the gang of 14...but that nuclear option doesn't look so hot now that we don't have the majority, does it?

I am sorry Jevica...but the HIGHEST trust you can ask of a parent is to trust the lives of their children to someone. I thought it was the height of arrogance for ex-lawyers turned talk show hosts to tell the man we are supposed to trust our children with how to do his job.

And for months, when the Dems were trying to tell Bush who he could appoint...they, especially Laura, screamed that it was BUSH'S JOB and they had NO RIGHT to tell him how to do it. Laura also condemned the MSM for "...attacking the president in time of war".

Or did you miss THAT hypocrisy?

I used to love talk radio. I couldn't get enough of it. Now I can't listen anymore. I have two shows left, Medved and Praguer.

You are exactly right about their betrayal of Bush, for their own ratings. I could have never imagined that happening. Hatred doesn't sell and that's why we lost seats in '06. Bush was doing great, against all odds he kept control of the Senate and the Congress, 2000, 2002, 2004, as you said. Then the bashing started and we lost for the first time in '06, since 1994! It all started with the Miers nomination.

Conservatives say that Bush betrayed them. It's the other way around. We knew when we elected Bush that he was a compassionate conservative, he ran on NCLB, immigration reform, prescription drugs for the elderly. He had every right to deliver on his promises! Why are their principles more important than his?

The Bill most certainly is not AMNESTY, which basically means that someone is absolved of a crime (mainly) without any consequences. That is certainly not what happens with this proposal. So, why do you say it is? I think the reason is that "amnesty," nothing more than a buzz-word is a way of avoiding discussion of the issues. It's a little like Rush Limbaugh calling "feminists" (whoever they are) "Nazis." Oh great, if they're Nazis (which they're surely not), then we don't have to discuss whatever points are important to them. What I'm accusing you of here is a rather serious offense -- not that you're going to take it seriously of course. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about, but that is not stopping you from harming real people, immigrants. The history of Anglo behavior in the Southwest and the West doesn't incline most Hispanics to have a high respect for the "law," something that poor people neither write nor enforce generally. Did my relatives get her "legally?" I don't know, and I don't care. The "law" was much different in those days. You're one of those "good people" whose unthinking actions do great harm to other human beings. You should agree with GWB on this issue. Why don't you? If you were a poor Mexican trying to feed children and get them health care, you would cross the border. So would I.

I don't know the answer to the immigration problem, which is immense. However, rather than have the Heritage Foundation do a bogus study designed to show how immigrants hurt the economy, we need a discussion of how many immigrants our country can assimilate. I would guess the number is about 50-60 million over a 20 year period, but that's right off the top of my head.

The situation where most Americans become obese while half the world is starving to death is not exactly a recipe for peace and harmony. It is not a situation that is acceptable to any followers of any of the world's major religions.

One thing that NEVER gets discussed is what the 45 million Hispanics legally in this country have added to the economy. Frankly, they make up a big chunk of the people who are going to pay our Social Security and Medicare. They are a major reason, according to historian Niall Ferguson (a very prestigious economic historian with positions at Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford) the immigrants are a major reason why our economy has grown much faster than Europe's -- and our unemployment AND inflation have been lower than Europe's or Japan's.

The Heritage study won't reflect this (which is rather obvious from comparing economies) because Mexican immigrants aren't paying the Heritage.

Without low-paid immigrants (legal and illegal) picking our vegetables, mowing our lawns, and cleaning our toilets the prices we pay for things would rise substantially.

So, when you see an immigrant today -- legal or illegal -- say "Thank You."

Until further notice, this will be my new blog link: http://camp2008victoryA.townhall.com

As you can see, this is just like the old blog link, except with the "A" after victory.

Everybody, please come visit!

steve

So is it your idea that since President Bush is sending our kids into battle we must go along with everything else in his policy?

No I didn't miss any of the SOCTUS appointment fiasco. The gang of [McCain] 14 should have been broken.

BTW steve when between 12 to 20 million illegals can get a Z visa with barely no problem [and renew the visa] and then "chain migration" enforcement first, then worry about the rest.

No I'm one of those people who feel that the at least 12 million illegals should have to go back to their country before they apply for a visa. No I don't believe my "unthinking actions do great harm to other human beings." Let me come to your house and set up my things.

The illegals [Hispanic] come here because the economy in their country sucks. Is that a reason there should be no consequences for their illegal actions?

You can't just pull a figure out of the "top of your head" and say we can assimilate those many. You would have to look at education, background, etc. BTW are those legal or illegal. If this bill passes we will find out because we will have your 50-60 million waiting for the next Z visa.

Also if you look at Social Security [as of now] by 2017 it's in trouble [big time] regardless of your 45 million Hispanics. Medicare even worse.

Heritage report is about the illegal immigrants.
"The Senate is currently considering a massive immigration reform bill, the "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007" (S. 1348). This bill would grant amnesty to nearly all illegal immigrants currently in the United States." Go here
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm

I have no problem with LEGAL immigration. Why should I support the President when I don't agree with his policy?

And that report was known seeing as it was given in testimony to the Subcommittee on
Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary
of the United States House of Representatives

But hey they may well have had a problem with this report. After all:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/tst052107a.cfm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGVmMWZkZDE1YzA3ZTA5ZTczN2E2ZWZmOGEyNTQ1NTY=

Robert Rector seems to have trouble deciding what exactly his figures are, which is strange as his study has pretensions of being an emperical study and scientific research paper, besides even Rector notices a difference between amnesty and Z-visas:

grant amnesty, "Z visas" or "earned citizenship"

And yes I can see why the Mexican economy being only the 12th largest in the world and being listed by Goldman Sachs as one of the next eleven, and by the G8 to be one of the G8+5 and the economic growth of 5.1% per year and a near halving of rural poverty does indeed suck.

My only point about the Heritage report was it was about illegals, not all immigrants.


Yes is diff. but the provisional Z visa can be renewed with no apparent problem, and they never would have to apply for earned citizenship.

"This is a preliminary estimate based on my ongoing research. More research should be performed, but I believe policy makers should examine these potential costs carefully before rushing to grant amnesty, "Z visas" or "earned citizenship" to the current illegal immigrant population."

If their economy is so great and growing then why are they some 12 to 20 million here illegal? Why pay thousands for a guide and then to cross a desert with danger of death, if they are caught & sent back to the 12th largest and growing economy why do they try to sneak back into a country that does not want them?