SELLING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ISSUE

And I wonder, again, why the GOP is dropping the ball on it. Aside from the 20% of the lunatics in this country, people DO want law & order and the protection of youth. The environment? I find the majority pay lip service to caring, especially when a demogogue like Gore can scream from the pulpit. But most people are pretty detached from the earth. That aside, this was a good statement, and you know, it just might work. Maybe send it in an email to Fred, and if you care, call Boehner's office.

Steve at Campaign2008Victory has decided to throw down the gauntlet over the "issue we won't name" that has caused recent uproars here at TH. You may want to listen sometime for amusement. It may be interesting.

but I warn you I have little patience for "stupidity".

You have my permission to "send it to Fred" or anyone else you think it may help. For months, many of the regulars on TH "assumed" I was pro-illegal because I made a case against their spin. I kept telling them that it's not the message I object to; it's the way it was being delivered to the average American voter. You cannot succeed without knowing what your core base wants/needs/believes...and you cannot expand and grow without knowing the same about consumers OUTSIDE of your comfort zone.

The absolutists and their minions were too busy preaching to the choir and the already converted to understand that they lost the rest of America.

And it cost the GOP it's majority and may very well cost America the war.

Why is the GOP dropping the illegal immigration issue? For the same reason that they've stopped listening to the absolutes...they've learned that for all the blustering about "being the base", these absolutes are 3rd party wannabes that has NOT sold their issue to Republicans much less the rest of America.

I've read some of the transcripts of the debate and if I was to give them any advise (you may want to include this in your letter to Fred)...DROP the Reagan reference and do not, NEVER bash the sitting president.

Most people really do remember Reagan and every time some politician pulls out his name, what the voter sees is someone who got conned by Reagan's ex-speech writers and worst; think Americans have short memories and/or are too stupid to look it up on the internet.

During the 2006 election fundraising, many politicians were shocked to learn just how many of the base (the ones that raise money, volunteer, staff campaign booths) LOVE Bush. Ingraham just admitted on Friday that everytime Bush is on her sound bite contest, he wins with gushing words of how her listeners love the man.

Most Republicans tend to be loyal to a fault and every time some politician that is supposed to be on his side does the popular thing and bash Bush, the real core of Repubs get uncomfortable at best and starts writing the candidate off at worst.

McCain had done such a great job earlier that day in his interview with Medved--and killed it all with his pot shot at the man he hopes to succeed.

It was like listening to fingernails against a chalk board.

And it made my day! More "sane" people on TH, all right!

Thanks for turning me on to his blog!

Well I'm off to my second family event; hope to catch up when I get home (and not late at night like yesterday.)

I think you're hitting a home run with the national security/law & order angle on illegal aliens. Normal people relate. Also, I agree with avoiding name dropping Reagan, I got sick of it in the so called "debate". Sounded phoney. And you win the trifecta, you are right about slamming Bush, it doesn't do anything positive, only creates bad results for everyone. If you have criticisms of him, which I do, (and I know you do also), it helps to remember to consider the ramifications of your actions. I still think tone is not appreciated enough by some on the Right. So congratulations, you're right again 3X. If we can just get some action instead of rhetoric....

"I kept telling them that it's not the message I object to; it's the way it was being delivered to the average American voter. You cannot succeed without knowing what your core base wants/needs/believes...and you cannot expand and grow without knowing the same about consumers OUTSIDE of your comfort zone."

This quote is why I have had such a problem with the illegal debate. I never understood the anger until I moved here to California, but even now, I feel there has to be a better way to frame this debate. I attempted at my blog, but I have a hard time with this issue, I know far too many immigrants I have become friends with. Great post

"I never understood the anger until I moved here to California..."

Neither do most people OUTSIDE of the 4 border states. And for the longest time neither did I. I dislike the "race card" and didn't want to think that race was the reason behind the vitriolic hatred or why the focus is on the southern not northern borders.

I mean why would a terrorist take a chance crossing thru a 3rd world border where the guard may put them in jail and throw the key away rather than "we'll give you a lawyer" Canada?

To me, if national security is the issue, BOTH borders need to be closed. (That's why there's an "s" in "the borders are porous and must be closed.") But the absolutes only focus on the Mexican border...why?

For the voter there can be only ONE acceptable answer: the criminal element.

While many voters may think about illegals making their way across the border in a "there for the grace of God, go I"...very few empathize with the drug cartel that poison not just the children of illegals but American kids from all walks of life. It's easy money...it's exotic...it's cool.

THIS is the message that should have been going out by the absolutes instead of revamping old welfare tales and spouting sanctimonious one liners about "amnesty" and "nation of laws".

I can remember when it was my 22nd birthday, it was a Tuesday evening, and my roommate and I had nothing better to do so we drove to Canada (about 3 hours away from the University of Idaho. It amazed me how "undefended" the border was. There was a little toll booth looking thing and a Welcome to Canada sign and that was it...a couple of miles in either direction, and it was a matter of crossing an imaginary line. That was in 1993. I would hope things are more secure now, but I imagine its not. Both borders need to be addressed, as you said. Its just the south that gets the focus because of the crime issue.

And the media actively paints the Right as being racist. That's why whenever the Minutemen speak here in at the University of Cincinnati, you see stories about protests and charges of racism in the local paper. So not only do people need to begin framing the issue differently, we need our leaders to aggressively attack the propaganda and control the perspective of the argument.

Sanity, I've answered your question at by place, but I'm not quite getting to your point....:)