The Amnesty Fallacy of the 2006 Election

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Nov 18, 2006.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    The Amnesty Fallacy
    By Rich Lowry, National Review
    November 17, 2006

    Arizona ain’t what they say it is.

    It’s disingenuous to argue that Arizona rejected enforcement when, as Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies points out, it approved ballot measures to deny bail to illegals, bar them from collecting punitive damages, keep them from receiving certain state subsidies and make English the state’s official language. If Arizona had recoiled from a get-tough approach to immigration, it would have rejected these measures along with Graf and Hayworth, rather than approving them by 3-1 margins.

    Finally, there is the matter of the Hispanic vote. The Republicans’ share of it declined to 30 percent this year from 38 percent in the last congressional midterms in 2002. This datum — often characterized as disastrous — has to be put in the context of a decline in the GOP share of the white vote, from 58percent to 51 percent. Republicans were equal-opportunity losers this year, alienating everyone from new immigrants to descendants from the Mayflower.

    For all of this, it seems that President Bush and House Majority Leader-elect Nancy Pelosi might still accept the “immigration enforcement lost” interpretation of [the 2006] election. They both do so at their political peril.

    for full article:
    http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE1NQ==
     
  2. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    Republicans lost bc they abandoned their base. We put them in office because we thought they would STAND for something, not do all this namby-pamby compromising. Ohio is usually a good indicator of national opinion, and I can tell you, all the good ole boys and union workers out here were saying, "If they ain't gonna grab their stuff and stand against "queers" (not MY word), Mexicans, and AY-rabs, I'm voting for labor unions and farm subsidies!"
     
  3. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Recently I read an election analysis that said, among voters, the Republicans held their base in the 2006 election but lost big among independent voters and Hispanics. It's understandable. Hispanics support amnesty, and independent voters want corruption cleaned up in Washington (I'm betting they won't get it) and something done about the execution of the war in Iraq.

    I think Lowry is right when he says the amnesty issue was NOT "put to bed once and for all" as a result of the 2006 election campaign. People did not vote for amnesty, but I think they're going to get it. Both Republicans and Democrats look at amnesty as a WIN-WIN.
     
  4. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    That would make the most sense. IMO, they lost because they had their priorities screwed up. They are very fortunate that the economy is doing well, or they wouldn't have carried any races. And to think that a move farther to the right is what is needed to regain their seats is folly.
     

Share This Page