Jun 06 2007
America Prefers The Status Quo?
I admit I missed the fact Scott Rassmussen did ask the question I wanted to see. He did ask whether the nation would prefer the status quo over the compromise:
Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters prefer no bill over the Senate bill. Just 32% prefer the legislative compromise over inaction.
Now how many people are naive enough to think the opposition to the bill is not a 50-50 mix of far right and far left? It is sadly laughable, but from what I am seeing the immigration hypochondriacs think the right and center are against the Bill and the left is for it. Which is of course silly. The far right is opposed to this bill and would prefer nothing because they cannot abide illegal immigrants getting legal status after fines, back taxes and background checks (not to mention you have to come forward). The far left, the real amnesty-open borders fringe, oppose this bill because it takes away the path to citizenship, has the one strike-your-out clause, and does not make long time illegal aliens immediate citizens.
This ain’t rocket science folks. Those 49% who would rather live with the status quo than pass these good changes are the far right and far left. I would wager that 49% is 25% far right and 25% far left. KOs readers and Malkin readers aligned in common cause. DU’ers and Freepers who would saddle this country with the same mess we have now before allowing the changes in this bill. Clearly, to support this bill you cannot be on either political fringe – by definition.
So that 32% who would rather have this bill than nothing, they represent those of us who decide who wins elections. That 32% is not buying into the far left or right zero sum game. Do the Immigration hypochondriacs REALLY believe the only supporters are far lefties? Do they really think that they will not pay a price for their attempts to leave the status quo mess in place? Hey, be my guest. Go ahead and assume the 32% is not critical to either party’s future electorial successes. I dare you. And Scott, you can prove me wrong by just making public the internals on that one number. I betcha it is 50-50 dem-rep or lib-con. For those who need emphasis regarding what is at stake let me do some math: 25+32 = 57%. Whoever gets the lion share of the blame for foiling the wishes of that 32% could alienate them for years to come.
Addendum: BTW, Rasmussen confirms my contention that the conservative camp is made up of people who support the entire bill and those who oppose the guest worker provisions:
From the beginning, the President and most other Beltway politicians have misunderstood the public debate over immigration. The initial discussions in Washington implied a debate that was either pro-immigration or anti-immigration. Those who favored some form of legalization or earned citizenship were pictured in official Washington as pro-immigrant while those who favored border control were thought to be anti-immigrant, ignorant, and perhaps racist.
However, Rasmussen Reports data shows an entirely different picture. Among those who favor enforcement-first policies [72%: AJStrata}, 59% also favor a national policy goal that welcomes all immigrants except national security threats, criminals, and those who would come here to live off the U.S. welfare system.
I think it is clear the far right has pulled ‘the common’ ground out from the conservative coalition. Their opposition has always been against giving legal status to illegal immigrants after fines and backtaxes. Their laughable hypocrisy continues as they call for law enforcement while claiming it will never be done right. Why demand something they have no faith in? To kill the bill of course! As I said the GOP will do what it wants, no matter what the consequences. And they seem to be willing to accept some really serious consequences to keep us mired in this current mess. Now it is only a choice between what we have and… What we have.
So how do you think you can put me in the little box your are attempting too? You can’t because you really have no clue where I stand.
That is a tactic known as “personal attack”. It is meant as an intimidation technique. It is meant to silence you. It is also a technique used to completely avoid debate before it even begins.
It also referred to as an “Ad Hominem” attack in the list of “formal fallacies” of a debate.
I have always said that you can tell which side of a debate has the weaker argument simply by waiting to see which side is the first to engage in personal attacks. That is the side with the weaker argument.
Wikipedia has a more detailed description if you are interested –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_personal_attacks
As a side note, which some of you may get a kick out of, if you have been following the global warming debate, did you happen to notice which side was the first to start with the personal attacks???
“BigLSU – You are soooo right. If the guest worker program was not in this package far right would be singing “aaammmen!â€. ”
You are soooo wrong. The guest worker program wont even matter when you LEGALIZE EVERYONE INSTANTLY! It’s a moot point. The instant legalization IS the guestworker program, only it is all the benefits and more of citizenship plus.
So how do you think you can put me in the little box your are attempting too? You can’t because you really have no clue where I stand.
That is a tactic known as “personal attack”. It is meant as an intimidation technique. It is meant to silence you. It is also a technique used to completely avoid debate before it even begins.
It also referred to as an “Ad Hominem” attack in the list of “formal fallacies” of a debate.
I have always said that you can tell which side of a debate has the weaker argument simply by waiting to see which side is the first to engage in personal attacks. That is the side with the weaker argument.
Wikipedia has a more detailed description if you are interested. Search for “personal attacks”.
As a side note, which some of you may get a kick out of, if you have been following the global warming debate, did you happen to notice which side was the first to start with the personal attacks???
Strata believes 49% of American voters are extremists. I won’t argue;
as I say, the center cannot hold. Ultimately. Sooner than you believe.
Anyone see the Latino entertainer awards on TV last nite?
Los Lobos, unobjectionable rootsy Hispanic bluesy/rock group, receiving its award, thanked for their service to the community,the very extreme Hispanic supremacist/revanchist group “LaRaza!”
Even Republican Hispanics might well not be conservative, except in
the regard that Farrakhan’s black nationalists are conservative.
AJ
In some way you are buying into the meme that this is all about Mexicans. That is a large part , but it isn’t the full story.
Let’s take this example ripped from the headlines.
A while back a family was burned out in NY City. They were from Sudan and by all accounts were recent arrivals in the country. How recent I don’t know.
In any event the later reports showed the head of the household who died in the fire had multiple wives spread across several floors in different apartments and many offspring who were also lost.
Now just tell me how someone could afford more than one wife and multiple children plus the cost of several apartments in NY City.
Have you checked the rental rates their lately?
The MSM got their sob points out of the story but never questioned the obvious financial questions behind it which should have been the back story.
I was speaking from memory, and I was wrong. 🙁
A personal attack is an “Ad Hominem” attack.
In philosophy, there are narrowly defined fallacies. I wrote (see above) that a personal attack is a “formal fallacy”, and that is not correct. It is an “informal fallacy” and not a “formal fallacy”. More precisely, it is “informal relevance fallacy”.
The practice is to attack the messenger and not the argument. Obviously, this is flawed logically.
Anyway, I just wanted to correct myself. Sorry for the small error. My apologies.