Jun 29 2007
GOP As Popular As Amnesty Bill
Updates Below
Think America wants the GOP shoved down their throats any more than the immigration bill? Apprently it is a worthwhile question now that they are as popular as the immigration bill:
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 26-27, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters. Except where noted, results below are among registered voters.
“Do you approve or disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing?
6/26-27/07
Approve : 30
Disapprove: 56
Unsure: 14
LOL! There’s a success. The GOP destroyed itself by making it as popular as the Bill it defeated. Combine that news with the fact the GOP lost ground over the last month to the Dems in the generic ballot question, going from a 7 point to a 12 point deficit, and one thing is becoming clear: the GOP is not very popular right now. About as popular as ‘amnesty’.
Update: Some GOP’ers are in the bliss of ignorance, saying not to worry! Whistling past the grave? Who knows. CNN has the GOP down 12 points too: 53-41. Two polls, same dismal result. And look at the Presidential head-to-heads. Earlier this year the GOP always led. Now the Dems have a slight edge across the board. Nothing here folks. Just ignore it!! About as truthful as ‘enforce the laws’!
Major Update: Well, the polls are already showing the damage is done and growing with hispanics – a group the GOP needs some support from it they have any hope of winning any non-House races:
According to poll of 502 Hispanics in the field from June 2 through 24, President Bush’s approval rating among this population is 29 percent — low, but not significantly lower than the 32 percent showing Bush puts up among all Americans in Gallup polling. However, when we move from topline results on down to some more internals from the poll, the problems for the Republicans become more clear.
The Gallup survey indicates that 42 percent of Hispanics self-identify as Democrats while a mere 11 percent self-identify as Republican; 39 percent self-identify as Independent. When Independents were asked towards which party, if either, they lean, the Democrats’ numbers go up to 58 percent among Hispanics while the Republicans’ climb to just 20 percent — a remarkable spread. When polling one potential head-to-head contest, that between the Republican Rudy Giuliani and the Democrat Hillary Clinton (who by far garners the greatest support among Hispanics in a Democratic primary, though that could be a facet of her significantly higher name recognition), Clinton leads 66 percent to 27 percent — a far greater margin than the 50 percent to 45 percent spread by which she leads Giuliani among all Americans.
There is a way to fix this. The amnesty hypochondriacs will never face up to it. As long as there is no immigration bill – basically as it is now – then there is no way to demonstrate good faith with these VOTERS (not illegal immigrants). And even if the far right did all of a sudden realize the damage they did and tried to correct it, why would Harry Reid let them?
“A Mexican bomb will be a glorious event with the MSM and the Democrats. Just remember connecting the dots after 911???”
What happens if in the more likely scenario a Islamic terrorist crossess the Northern Border and something happens.
It’s funny the more I read the comments I come to the same conclusion REPS. will do just fine in 08 for one reason we are unified in what we beleive in we may have some disagreements of how we would like to implement these policies but being a republican means it is one big tent and we all should have different opinions.
Biglsufan, what some ranchers are screaming about is water rights to the Rio Grande. But ooops, the SCOTUS has already taken care of that. Eminant domain laws. Remember? Land can and will be taken to provide a fence if the administration decides to do it.
Those ranchers are legitimately concerned about water but the water problem can be handled with other solutions. One problem is that Mexico is screaming about the water removed from the Rio Grande. But it has not stopped Mexico from stiffing us (Texas) on the billions of gallons they owe us that we agreed to give them (with a repayment provision) when they were suffering a draught. Now Mexico, which has an overabundance of water due to rains, is refusing to repay Texas for the water they borrowed.
Let me ask you pro-amnesty bunch this; if we are going to grant amnesty to illegals for violating our laws, what laws can I violate each and every day and be given amnesty for? Can I continue to get a speeding ticket every day without the fear of jail? Can I refuse to pay taxes and then have the government give me a pass for those years? If I am ordered by the courts to pay my taxes and still refuse to do so, will the government let me get by with it?
For the record, Fred Barnes on Brit Hume’s show said he was not against this bill.
And listening to STAN GREENBERG? Are you kidding?
Puhlese.
Reitre, I challenge you to engage in a conversation with George W. Bush about spending and the Medicare Prescription bill.
When all is said and done you may have to eat your words, no disrespect intended. The Bush “spending like a drunken soldier” is a lie that has perpetrated the airwaves. Check out the law on what MUST be spent according to our budgets…put into law by congress, not the President.
And I will say again for the thousandth time, George W. Bush averted a world-wide depression after the attack on the World Financial Markets. Money needed to be flushed into the system BIGTIME. And tax cuts needed to generate the highest REVENUE to the government in how long? And are we or are we not speeding up the repayment of debt? Answer: hell yes.
The man has been incredibly responsible when it comes to this. Again, no disrespect intended, but this populist chant about spending by George is bogus and you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to what the economy needed after 9/11. Again, no disrespect intended. Just check out the truth.
Abundance is ours, sir, as it is to all in the world, if you really want it.
And frankly, I would rather have my tax dollars going to the Medicare Prescription bill than to bridges in Alaska or to the 25% waste that occurs from sending out ssi checks to dead people.
Well really I think the better comparison with today’s hardliners would be with the Know Nothings, who firmly believed that the Irish Catholics were part of an invasion force sent by the Pope to take over America. In fact they believed the Pope would take over Cincinnati by force.
Thank God for Abraham Lincoln, he put them down.
But the same paranoia and sense of conspiracy and persecution is seen in much of the rhetoric of today’s hardliners.
People who by and large did not say a word about any of this until the last couple of years, during which they lost their minds in a sort of mass hysteria.
So far in spite of all the preaching they have done about law and order they have accomplished nothing of any substance. They have not done much of anything other than make themselves look over the top.
I would find it easier to take them seriously if they had made any realistic attempts to deal with the problem in a rational way, but they did not and have not.
So, my question is, if this is sooo important, where the hell were you people? Don’t give me some crap about how you always cared blah blah blah. Newt did not do squat about this, no one made an issue of it in earlier primaries.
And this stuff about Bush making the fence a priority. Do people have any idea how our government works? I mean really? Any at all? Congress wrote the bill, there is a bid process, there are environmental impact studies, they have to work with the locals, allocate the money.
Sometimes I read some of the stuff hardliners write and say and I think they sound like children wanting a trip to Disney Land and they do not understand why they can’t go right this minute. sniff.
And yet for our entire history there has been no wall. Bush is the first president who ever signed such a bill. I don’t think people have any realistic idea about what is actually involved in doing something like this. And they don’t care if they have a realistic idea either. Realistic means nothing to them.
And as for amnesty, there were millions of people here before 1986, long before anyone ever said anything about any kind of amnesty, people were here. And so far as I have heard, most of the hardliners just want to work these people when and if they need them and ignore them anyway. That is not a deterrent to people coming. The hardliners have no plan to deal with the people here, other than waving a magic wand and making the bad wet back go away, so all their yammering about the proamnesty people is pretty funny considering their own hypocritical stance on the issue.
I don’t really care if these people get amnesty or not, but I do want to see more security measures and tougher work place enforcement as well as reform of our legal immigration system and the only way to get that is through bipartisan support. That means give and take.
Or you can just pitch a fit and end up with nothing.
ivehadit:
Bush has cut the deficit by almost half already.
But as to the Drug Prescription Program. Those people are already on Medicare, if they can not afford their insulin who pays for the stroke or the amputated limb? I work with people who use this program and believe it or not the conservative Republicans who qualify use it just like everyone else.
And when Bush tried to privatize SS, he got practically no help from the whiney right. For all their crap about spending money.
But, I tell you what, let some Republican run promising to cut Social Security, Medicare, education, health care and domestic infrastructure and just see what happens to him. That is not what people want. Congress would never support it.
More bad news for Warpublicans
CNN Poll: When asked “Do you think it is a good for the country or bad for the country that the Democrats control Congress?”
57% of respondents said “Good for the country.” The only way for the Warpublicans to stave off total disaster is for the Warpublicans to call for impeachment of the criminals Bush and Cheney.
Note to For Enforcement: I knew there was a reason you had so much trouble keeping up, and now you’ve admitted the reason – an impaired IQ. If you need help with the big words, let me know and I’ll put some horsepower (156 Wechsler/176 Standford Binet) to work and walk you through the hard parts.
Well you know they say the Unabomber had a high IQ as well. So did Tim McVeigh.
“Let me ask you pro-amnesty bunch this; if we are going to grant amnesty to illegals for violating our laws, what laws can I violate each and every day and be given amnesty for? Can I continue to get a speeding ticket every day without the fear of jail? Can I refuse to pay taxes and then have the government give me a pass for those years? If I am ordered by the courts to pay my taxes and still refuse to do so, will the government let me get by with it? ”
So are you saying that we get the borders secured to your estimation, that we should bother to come talk to you about what you refer to as Amnesty or any sort of legalization for the illegals. JUst asking
I hear SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST and then we will talk. I am just trying to keep track of who is supporting what after “we secure the borders”
“But, I tell you what, let some Republican run promising to cut Social Security, Medicare, education, health care and domestic infrastructure and just see what happens to him. That is not what people want. Congress would never support it.”
Isnt that the truth Terrye. Myu grandparents were bitching left and right about the cost of presciption medicine. Now not so much. Something had to be done.
Spend money on a boondoggle of a Fence that will largely be ineffective becuase it is not even the kind of fencing we need or spend it on the old folks. I think I know what I pick.
Conservatives as to this issue have gone on a spending spree and I don’t think they have an idea of what they want.
Excellent editorial from National Review Online:
June 29, 2007 8:00 AM
Immigration Reform, for Real
By The Editors
For months, the establishment dismissed those of us opposed to amnesty as a tiny minority of the public and the Congress. On Thursday, that “tiny minority†outnumbered the pro-amnesty forces in the Senate, dealing a humiliating and well-deserved defeat to President Bush. The same White House that insisted that there was no realistic alternative to “comprehensive immigration reform†had better recalibrate its realism now. There always were better alternatives, and the president and his party have no way out of the immigration morass he has created unless they pursue them.
Nor does the country. The public is rightly dismayed at our incapacity to exercise a key attribute of sovereignty: control of the borders. For decades, our elected officials have passed immigration laws that they lack the political will to enforce. Among the fallacies of “comprehensive reform†was the notion that this situation could be fixed instantaneously. It cannot. But by rejecting a solution that would make the problem worse, we may have taken the first of many steps toward a better immigration system.
The next step ought to be President Bush’s. As divisive as this debate has been, it did reveal a consensus on the need to enforce current laws. The president should accept that consensus and act on it. If necessary, he should request additional authority and resources for the purpose.
Under current law, the border can be secured and the administration can crack down on scofflaw employers. Contractors can be required to enroll in the government’s employee-verification system as a condition of doing business with the federal government. The Social Security Administration identifies tens of thousands of W-2 forms with false or stolen Social Security numbers. The IRS can fine employers who file a significant number of such forms.
In arguing for the comprehensive reform, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff said that his department needed data from the Social Security Administration to enforce the law on employers. There never was any need to hold that simple reform hostage to amnesty, and the president should ask Congress to enact it now. He should also clarify that state and local law-enforcement agencies have the constitutional authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws.
Bush could also learn from some of the amendments offered during the recent debate. Court-ordered restrictions on deportation should, where possible, be eased. “Sanctuary cities†ought to be penalized. So should visitors who overstay their visas.
The president’s error has been to regard controlling immigration and welcoming newcomers as polar opposites. But a sensible control of immigration would provide both an economic basis for new immigrants to succeed and a political basis for them to be greeted warmly. And in any case, Republicans who seek their own political health no longer have a choice in the matter.
Those who profit from porous borders took a risk when they broached the topic of comprehensive reform: that the public, long inattentive to the causes of our failing policy, might start taking a closer look. It is going to be much harder for the political class to follow its accustomed course. If the president charts a new one, he will have the support of the public and even some Democrats. If Congress balks, he will have in his hands a winning issue. That would be a nice change of pace, wouldn’t it?
Of course fences won’t work. That is why they are around the White House, prisons, high security military bases and Area 51. Because they don’t work.
And biglsufan, you are dodging when you answer a question with a question. Again, what laws am I allowed to violate day after day?
If illegals are allowed to not pay back taxes, how can the government legitimately do that? That would be considered discrimination against one group of Americans, those who are natural born/naturalized. If illegals are allowed to attend a university, paying in-state tuition, that will be one of the first things challanged in court. You cannot give one group benefits that you don’t give another. I believe if challanged all the way to SCOTUS, they would rule that all students were eligible for in-state tuition.
You see, this bill was a judicial nightmare. Anyone who read the bill knew that.
Why is it that the illegal who stole my SS# cannot be arrest because the Social Security Administration is not allowed to share informtion with the judicial system? Identity theft is rampant and it is hard working Americans who are paying the price.
There was nothing, absolutely nothing, in this bill that acted in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. It should have been called the “Terrorist Protection Act” since it gave so much freedom and benefits to illegals. And yes, we need to close our northern border as well, but the last time I checked, there were not 500K to a million French Canadians sneaking across the border every year.
Big Lsu, I gave you 8+ hours and you couldn’t come up with ANY numbers showing that great shift. Hmmmmm.
The Shift was well underway because of Hoover’s broken promises.
Terrye, the more I read from you the more you remove all doubt that you are clueless.
\
And when Bush tried to privatize SS, he got practically no help from the whiney right. For all their crap about spending money.
The right is the ones that wanted SS privatized.
Soothie, when I said North of 140, I didn’t say how far north, people don’t believe that crap anyhow, but I will say you almost got into my range. Maybe a retest?
05,
Comparingthe effectiveness of a small enclosure fence with “the great wall” fence” is inappropriate.
“Forgiving back taxes” is a common part of settling with delinquent taxpayers. And many crimes by citizens escape punishment due to the ststute of limitations.
Will you benefit from the SS taxes paid into your account by an illegal? The rest of us do by millions of young workers contributing to a program they won’t collect from.
BigLsuGuy, you are emulating AJ and quoting only the stats you think support your side of the discussion.
And so the number of black registered republicans in Ark, La, and Ms that changed their registration between 1927 and 1932 and voted Dimmicrat is? When you claim that Hoovers actions caused a major shift in those states and they voted for FDR instead of Hoover and that is why Hoover lost. You need to publish the numbers that show that. Quoting numbers in the North between 1932 that caused a shift in 1936 doesn’ t cut it. It only PROVES that the depression caused the shift.
I don’t care anything about all that crap about rising tide by some yayhoo with an ax to grind writing HIS version of HIStory. Unless you can pull some numbers out of the book that actually support your thesis, then you’re wasting your time and mine.
I heard Fred Barnes say the other day he supported the immigration bill, haven’t heard that he changed his mind.
Krauthammer was against it. Kondrake was neutral(I think) Billy Kristol was against it. Brit Hume was against it. Juan williams and the girl were for it.
“Big Lsu, I gave you 8+ hours and you couldn’t come up with ANY numbers showing that great shift. Hmmmmm.
The Shift was well underway because of Hoover’s broken promises.”
I quoted some from a book the book this morning. If there is true great interest in this subject I shall go back and research there and look for any available data. I was also sort of busy interacting on the new Vatican Document on China this morning so I admit iwas juggling two things.
Also, there will be no shifts to from Republicans to Democats in Mississippit because as I stated one has to be white to be a Democrat. I shall have to check to see what the status of Party laws were in Louisiana and Arkansas for that time. So not there will be no shift in Mississippi Registrations from Republicans to Democrat because that was impossible at that TIME.
Again, his research on the subject has never eeally been seriously questioned by any Republican that I know of and he is pointing to just plain historical fact