THe Govt will not do it defense is getting old. I guess we should all withdraw from politics? I mena what is the point

Computer tracking doesn't work, can't work? Oh no!

I'm selling my UPS and FedEx stock tomorrow. If Hugh Hewitt says it, it must be true.

RBMN:

No no, it's laughable... ha-HA!

I think Hugh is saying that the system won't be perfect -- true enough; but then he's taking the paralogical step of saying, therefore it's no better than what we have now.

Or perhaps he's saying it's not as good as his fantasy version. This may also be true -- but irrelevant, as his fantasy version cannot pass Congress.

Dafydd

Dafydd,

I was joking about UPS of course.

If a single-owner/single-operator merchant can instantly validate and bill credit cards, using something like the following:

http://www.linkpoint.com/possite/product_solutions_hardware/pos/linkpointaio/lpaio_index.html

and if even the United State Postal Service can figure out how to scan and track packages, then I think most employers could probably figure out how to authenticate a Z-visa card, and enter it as an employment "transaction." Then, collect enough transaction data, and you might learn stuff. Imagine that.

I have gotten to the point where I don't listen to that stuff anymore. I am so tired of the self righteous indignation routine from these people.

Over at another site I was told I did not have the facts about this horrid evil bill and there is no way those people understand this stuff. They don't even care.

I wonder if they realize that they will own this issue. If they make it impossible for anyone else to do anything about any of this. If they obstruct any effort on anyone else's part to deal with the problem then sooner or later they will own it. And we will see if they can do anything about it other than run their mouths.

If you took it step by step and piece by piece, you'd melt a lot of opposition. For instance, clearing the backlog of patient law-abiding visaholders removes much of the unfairness in the Z-visa setup. And I say that as an opponent.

I wish I would "own" immigration; however I'll have to entrust it to some elected representative who will apparently drift into this mess regardless of majority or district or tenure...

Ok, math? Here it is. Note that I realize that trends change and I am extrapolating. However, everyone should think long and hard about the implications. As far as I can see there is absolutely no need for a mad rush to a “comprehensive” immigration solution. Unskilled labor needs? I think most of history shows that need has been met more by automation than importation of cheap labor. Getting entrance into the U. S. under control first is not an unreasonable approach, Hewitt’s somewhat emotional response notwithstanding. We then can take a number of years to figure out what the best immigration policy should be. I think at this point in history we should take a time out for a few years (8 to 10), get the borders under control, and place a moratorium on immigration except for folks with advanced scientific and technical training (I would actually encourage the immigration of those sorts of people) until we understand what is happening to world population and observe what is going on in Europe and the old Soviet Union. But of course intelligent policy on immigration is in short supply in the D.C. beltway world. Now again this is extrapolation so it is only an indication of one possible outcome.

Here is some interesting data:

"ATLANTA - The number of people in the United States from ethnic or racial minorities has risen to more than 100 million, or around one third of the population, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released Thursday.

The minorities figure stood at 100.7 million, up from 98.3 million a year earlier. Within that, the Hispanic population was the fastest growing at a rate of 3.4 percent between July 2005 and July 2006.

Hispanics were also the largest minority group, accounting for 44.3 million people on July 1, 2006, or 14.8 percent of the overall U.S. population which, according to census data released in October 2006, stood at more than 300 million."

Now populations (people, deer, microorganisms, whatever) grow or contract exponentially. Does anyone in the government remotely understand this? Do they understand the significance of it? The problem with exponential growth is that it can sneak up on you. If P1 = P0*(1 + r)**n where P0 is some starting population, P1 is the population after n years, and r is the growth rate and furthermore if r isn’t particularly large, you can creep up on the “knee” of the curve and then suddenly be overwhelmed. If you assume that the growth rate r is 0.02 and you start with 300 million folks in 25 years you will have 492 million, an increase of 192 million between year 1 and 25. However after 50 years you will have 807 million, an increase of 315 million between year 25 and 50. Between year 50 and 75 the population would jump by 518 million to over 1.3 billion! It just continues to get exponentially worse until something happens to change it. The only way this constant increase can change for a given population is if your growth rate (r) is negative, i.e. there are more deaths than births plus immigration or it is zero, i.e. replacement. The formula for negative “growth” looks like this: P1 = P0*(1 - r)**n . I can think of a number of ways r can become negative. Most of them are extremely unpleasant. Negative growth by the way is what is happening with the indigenous populations of Europe, Russia, and Japan. This decline appears relatively benign because it is a result of a low birth rate. However this brings its own set of problems especially for Europe since only one segment of the European population is growing, i.e. the Muslim population. Our native born population is at about replacement. The only reason the U.S. and European populations are increasing is because of immigration. The manner in which populations grow or contract is simple irrefutable mathematics. This formula of course is also the way a sum of money grows at compound interest. Incidentally, although the story may be apocryphal, Einstein purportedly said that compound interest was the greatest wonder of the universe. Most likely that is an overstatement for dramatic effect. Nonetheless it is a very important concept.

If the currently proposed immigration bill turns out to be another 1986 deal, want to know what it could mean in mathematical terms for the Hispanic population? N = Log(2)/Log(1.034) = 20.73132 or in words the Hispanic population will double in about 20 years 8 months and 23 days at the 3.4% rate stated above.

Now I have two problems with this and neither one has anything to do with ethnicity. One is the sheer numbers. There really is a limit to how many people you can stuff into a given geographical area before you start having real problems. If we allow this growth, other groups will decide to join the party and within 20 years or so we may well be approaching 600 million folks. I don’t think that is sustainable. It doesn’t matter if they are all bloody Englishman, Chinese, Germans, Russians, Japanese, or whatever it isn’t sustainable. The other problem is the inability to assimilate a population that is growing this fast. Many of these new folks are not familiar with classical constitutional democratic republican government. In fact many more than half the indigenous folks aren’t familiar with it either. Worse, many will be going through our socialist propaganda mills called public schools. Bottom line – more demagogues as political leaders like the ones that are busy making other places in the world so bad that everyone wants to come here.

This is not a racial or ethnic issue. It’s a lifeboat issue. If you put too many people in the lifeboat too quickly nobody lives! The solution is for other countries to fix their problems not for everyone to come here! This is not a big relatively empty country anymore. I have no doubt that the immigration problem in the U.S. will eventually be solved or more accurately settled. What worries me is that it will be solved by a level of violence that we have not seen in this country since the 1860’s. Of course I understand perfectly well that none of this may actually occur. But is it unreasonable or detrimental to our country to slow down the pace of influx?

At any rate we can only really guess at the future. In his book (The Singularity is Near) Ray Kurzweil predicts a completely different world of super advanced technology basing this, incidentally, on an exponential growth in scientific and technological knowledge. Kurzweil contends that this has been going on for all of human history but because the rate of growth has been so low we don’t recognize it as exponential. Yet all such growth curves eventually reach a point where they become almost vertical. When the rate of growth is very low, however, you don’t realize you are in an exponential growth situation until you are very near the upward move. Kurzweil believes we are about to enter that zone. Of course, researchers may hit a wall or some other phenomenon like our immigration problems may thwart his prediction. One should always remember that it isn’t always easy to predict trends from current conditions. Things have a way of changing in directions we didn’t forecast like the collapse of the old Soviet Union for example. One of my favorite quotes is from an old movie:

"Yes, there's always the unexpected, isn't there? "

Jack Hawkins as Major Warden - The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

My point is that rapid change in population may just increase the number of unpleasant unexpected outcomes.

You wrote:

Steyn then rambled on, saying that it didn't matter what anybody did about visas or immigration law, because "nobody ever checks anything anyway." Of course, if this is true -- then what makes him think a strict, enforcement-only bill would be, well, enforced?

The problem I have with your support of the immigration bill is that you have not yet convinced me that enforcement will be taken seriously under the new law. (And history certainly doesn't argue in your favor.) Yes, that may mitigate against passing an enforcement-only bill, or against enforcing current law (still my personal favorite approach), but how does it argue for support of passage of a new set of rules? What reason do you have to believe that under this new arrangement the new rules will be kept any better than the old ones have been?

Watchman,

Tell me how you prosecute an employer that filled in the required I-9 form based on a worker's passable forged documents. Under the current law, you can't do it. The employer did what he was required to do. You can wait for him to break down and confess that he knew the documents were forgeries.... That'll be a long wait.

We have the problem we have now BECAUSE of the current law--not in spite of it.

You will love this. Hewitt is now being talked about to be mod of the WSJ/NR debate on this matter. At the corner:
) So, does Steve Moore’s statement constitute acceptance?! I’m excited…

I’m sure you’ve thought about moderators, and I’d suggest Hugh Hewitt. I say this because his position on this is somewhere between NR’s and WSJ’s, he’s actually read the bill, he’s already offered to host it on his show (so he’d fly out to host it live)…

Anyway, I hope this happens.

2) What a great idea! I’m getting giddy to take a few days off of work and drive down from Youngstown, Ohio to watch you crush the opposition. For whatever it’s worth, make the venue BIG and save me a seat up front!

Freaking thrilled…

3) It’s a great idea. My guess is they’ll decline, though. The basic idea of the proponents of this bill is to ram it through with all the speed and Washington-insider techniques they can muster. Slow down, talk about the ideas, and they lose, and they know this very well…

4)…[from a DHS address] It is not clear to me why WSJ would want to debate NRO since WSJ would use the idiom of basic free-market economics which is a language that is not understood by most of the NRO antagonists.

ME: Taking them in order:

1) Unfortunately, I doubt Steve speaks for the editorial board officially on this. But I do very much admire his fighting spirit and his willingness to debate this thing fairly and openly in a Firing Line-style forum, As for Hugh moderating, we’re open to whatever the Journal would want to do on that front;

2) People do seem genuinely excited by the idea;

3) That’s a cynical interpretation. But it certainly applies to a lot of elected supporters of the bill;

4) I don’t want to get into the market arguments in detail here, but just let me say I have tons of respect for the Journal guys. I think they’re wrong, but I don’t think they’re irrational or foaming at the mouth. I think they would be formidable in the kind of debate we’re talking about. Another reason to look forward to it—if they accept.

06/01 12:29 PM

Watchman:

The problem I have with your support of the immigration bill is that you have not yet convinced me that enforcement will be taken seriously under the new law. (And history certainly doesn't argue in your favor.) Yes, that may mitigate against passing an enforcement-only bill, or against enforcing current law (still my personal favorite approach), but how does it argue for support of passage of a new set of rules?

It doesn't argue for the bill under debate; it argues for the point that you have removed yourselve from the discussion.

By taking the position that, essentially, nothing will ever work and nothing will ever be enforced, you have silenced your own voice... once you have said that, how could you then support any change at all -- or even the status quo itself?

It's exactly equivalent to those people who say, during a discussion about the 2008 election, "Republicrat or Demolican, what's the difference? They're all crooks anyway, and one is as bad as another!"

At that point, nobody will pay any more attention to what Mr. Makes No Difference has to say, because the only position he could hold and be consistent is that nobody should ever vote.

LSUsportsfan:

I would love to see a debate, but Hugh cannot moderate. I know he thinks he's impartial or "in the middle" -- although he never accepts such a self-evaluation from a journalist who is a guest on his show -- but in reality, his position is that unless a whole slew of amendments are forced upon the proponents under threat of filibuster, amendments that would fundamentally alter the agreement (and cause its demise), the bill should be defeated.

Thus in reality, he is an ardent opponent of the bill. Having him as moderator would be almost as bad as having John McCain as moderator.

The moderator should be somebody with actual experience, such as Brit Hume. And the format should mimic that of Firing Line: Each side asking the other side questions, rather than the moderator asking the questions.

That said, I would certainly watch such a debate. But there could be no possibility of scoring it, of course, because you couldn't find enough impartial people with enough gravitas to pull it off.

What is Hugh's principal demand? That we do all the enforcement elements first: Build the wall, strengthen workplace enforcement, double the Border Patrol.

Then, when all that is finished, we sit and wait for "a few years" to see whether it all works out as we hoped it would. Once we have reduced illegal immigration by 90% -- however long that takes -- then and only then can we consider the other side of the bill: reform of legal immigration, guest worker program, and regularization of illegals already here.

This is a poison pill, and Hugh knows it. Why would Democrats ever agree to giving the Republicans everything they want... and in exchange, years later, the Republicans will decide whether or not to allow the Democrats to get what they want?

Would you agree to that, if the roles were reversed?

Finally, we get to Hugh's other bugaboo: his "No Moslems" amendment. Oh, he couches it in other terms: No legalization for people who come from countries with "well established jihadist networks." But that includes, well, every country with a majority of Moslems or even a strong Moslem presence in the population. And of course, his proposal would keep Maronite Christians from Lebanon and Jewish refugees from Egypt out of America, as well; but you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs.

Hugh claims he doesn't advocate a ban, just "more scrutiny;" but he insists the burden of proof must be on the applicant to prove that he is not a jihadist... which he knows is impossible.

How would you go about doing that? By showing that you've been persecuted by Sunni terrorists? Ah, but then you can't prove you're not a Shiite terrorist.

By pointing to anti-jihadist writings you've published? Bah; it's just part of your cover. Any al-Qaeda worth his turban would prepare the ground by publishing just such writings, just as Soviet spies often masqueraded as anti-Communists.

Say, I guess you can't prove it at all! You come from Indonesia; that is enough. Go away.

In reality, Hugh wants to hang a big "No Moslems" sign on the door. Oddly, however, the way he phrases it, it sounds like the prohibition would only apply to non-native Spanish speakers. So I reckon we let Filipinos in, even if they are Moslem jihadis; but no others!

To me, this is so profoundly unAmerican, I hardly know where to begin. Although we all agree there are millions, perhaps tens of millions of Moslem jihadists, and they unquestionably represent a grave threat to the United States, that is still a tiny fraction of Moslems. We do not make ourselves safer by overtly discriminating against all Moslems.

Non-jihadist Moslems have not stepped up to the plate in great enough numbers; they are culpable in that sense. But it is urgent that we engage them and persuade them to do so... just as we are now winning in al-Anbar because we engaged the Sunni tribal leaders and persuaded them to fight against al-Qaeda.

Had we treated every Sunni in Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala as if he was an al-Qaeda terrorist, they would have lived down to our expectations; instead of winning, we would be losing, and losing very badly. So of course, Hugh wants us to use those same broad-brush tactics in immigration, with the same dreadful consequences.

I wonder whether he is capable of being rational about the issue; listening to his show, I am not reassured.

Dafydd

America was unable to stop alcohol (“Prohibition”) and remains unable to stop drugs even after decades of trying. Granted…illegal immigrants might not be the same ‘Thang, but trying to stop them is in the same ’Ball Park’. Punishing those who hire them might work, but a fence wouldn’t…for long anyway.

Besides, our Islamic Enemies have already said that they intend to stop and/or destroy America’s Way of Life, and i suspect that they would like nothing better than seeing us in a ’Lockdown’ mode for starters.

The CIA World Factbook uses Kilometers instead of Miles (don’t ask me why)?!? Hold on whilst humble me tries to find a conversion site…

OK…if this works…our border with Canada (Alaska not included) is about 6,416 km or 3,986 miles. Our border with Mexico is about 3,141 km or 1,951 miles. About 5,937 miles of total land borders (Alaska not included). Our Coastline is 19,924 km (doesn’t say, but probably includes Alaska?). Or 12,380 miles of Coastline. Building a fence between Mexico and the United States is akin to building a one-sided Fort or Castle…so to speak of perhaps slowing down illegal immigration, but certainly not stopping any well funded Terrorist Organization.

If…if humble Low and Ignorant Insane swamp hermit me were the ’Head’ of a Terrorist Organization, then i would send in the Visa groups (students, workers, perhaps some illegal’s, certainly some decoys, etc.) first…to prepare the groundwork. i would then wait, until i was ready or felt that America was ’Ripe for Plucking’. Such groundwork is probably finished by now, so the Terrorists must be smiling about all this talk about stopping illegal immigrants, stopping Terrorists from entering, Z Visas, etcetera etcetera etcetera.

Stopping Terrorism, Terrorists, and Supporters of Terrorism will take Decades, just as President George W. Bush first said, soon after the 911 Attacks…with the United States Government and its Citizens cheering him on. Look at us now…so to speak of less than six years later.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Question for anyone that knows

Where are the Hispanic Republicans and COnservatives? How come they are not on my TV and on Talk radio. I know a ton of them exist. How come I don't see anyone from the Republican National Assembly on Sean Hannity. How come I don't see Republican hispanics giving Guest articles at National Review. I know they exist because we have a ton of them. It seems to be that would be helpful.

Now, the reasons are either

(1) they have been told to lay low which I find to be stupid if true

or

(2) they are not invited or booked on the MSM or not engaged and allowed a platform on the major conservative internet sites?

I would like to know which it is.

lsu:

I go with #2.

Terrye

I would go with 2 also. IF that is true that is pretty sad

IF we can possibly create a very-tough-to-forge work ID, and track the use of the ID, and anybody not possessing the ID doesn't have a valid right to work in the USA, and every employer can instantly process the ID, and all employers are accountable to do so---why not leave it right there?

Why bother with Z-visas or Q-visas or Aleph-visas?
If they don't have the Work ID--regardless of residency status--they'll be taking the road home fairly soon, or running right into prosecution for subverting the ID regime. Why touch on residency at all, IF you can fully regulate employment?

Trick question. Your goal is to legalize all irregularities so as to avoid even sustaining the current levels of prosecution. The whole point of this bill is to declare everybody and their uncle to be a lawful worker within the USA--the bit about the ID is just sugar to get us to swallow that. If there were even 10,000 prosecutions a year over illegal hiring without the ID, you guys would be back to scrap it...

The Yell:

If we can receive a great car with good acceleration and handling and excellent gas mileage, why not just leave it right there? Why even bother paying money to the dealer?

This whole "car sale" transaction is just a scam by the automobile manufacturers to make money! They don't really care whether we have a good car or not... they're just in it for themselves.

Dafydd

Your analogy falls croaking upon its face and never looks upon the sky again.

An effective ID scheme without radical alterations in residency remains an effective ID scheme. Conversely, radically altering residency without a national ID card is also a workable outcome--it's exactly what we did 140 years ago for the waves of European immigrants. There is no fundamental requirement that both have to occur simultaeneously--as there is for a manufacturer to be paid for each item.

The pro-"reform" lobby eagerly proclaims we can't process 12 million violators and that a system built on that premise is a total failure. From that I make the four-dimensional leap to the conclusion you won't even maintain current levels of prosecution. Am I wrong--you do look forward to 10,000 ID-fraud trials every year?

The Yell:

The problem with my analogy was that you didn't understand it.

The "deal" is between the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress. What you are saying is that, once we get what we want (enforcement), why shouldn't we stop right there -- and not give the Democrats what they want (regularization)?

The answer is that you cannot move the bill through Congress without Democratic support and approval.

The Democrats are not utter fools; they will never agree to a scenario where all the enforcement comes first, and the regularization will be "considered" afterwards... because they are aware that people like you will take the enforcement -- then demand that the Democrats get shut out.

So the proposition is simple: The Democrats will never agree to allow us to have enforcement unless we allow them to have regularization. Therefore, our choices are either:

1. Enforcement and regularization; or
2. Neither enforcement nor regularization.

Pick one option, The Yell, and let us know about it.

Dafydd

To continue with the auto theme, when confronted with

1. No car
2. same old Detroit lemon

a significant percentage of the public answered "Toyota."

Faced with such a phony "have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet" dichotomy, the savvy operator will choose

3. No immediate policy decision; hammer the absence of a policy decision in the elections as an opportunity to achieve a GOOD policy; win a majority around a mandate for good policy; Enact the good policy.

Which the Right really hasn't even TRIED in six years, being torn between people who'd love to try, leadership whose fondest dream is bad policy, and people who insist we do SOMETHING NOW, for better or for worse.

The Yell:

3. [a] No immediate policy decision; [b] hammer the absence of a policy decision in the elections as an opportunity to achieve a GOOD policy; [c] win a majority around a mandate for good policy; [d] Enact the good policy.

Which the Right really hasn't even TRIED in six years, being torn between people who'd love to try, leadership whose fondest dream is bad policy, and people who insist we do SOMETHING NOW, for better or for worse.

Actually, quite a few Republican incumbents and challengers brought about 3[a] by rejecting the Senate bill and enacting an enforcement-only bill, then based their entire campaigns around 3[b]. Curiously, 3[c] did not come to pass... preventing the now unemployed candidates from engaging in 3[d].

I believe LSUsportsfan has documented quite some number of such cases. Can you document a single case, The Yell, where the opposite happened -- where 3[a] and 3[b] led directly to 3[c]?

Dafydd

Can you document a single case, The Yell, where the opposite happened -- where 3[a] and 3[b] led directly to 3[c]?
Off the top of my head, sure:
http://tancredo.house.gov/

We sure do hear that opposing the Senate bill was a big loser, don't we? But if you list the many defeated Republican opponents of amnesty, and strike those defeated by Democrat opponents of amnesty, you've suddenly got a much smaller list.
Which is why Pelosi feels free to state the Senate amnesty bill has to have 70 Republican supporters before the House will entertain a vote.

As I said, the party as a whole has failed here. 3[d] was not an option even with Republican majorities, when Amnesty was introduced...twice...

The Yell:

Can you document a single case, The Yell, where the opposite happened -- where 3[a] and 3[b] led directly to 3[c]?

Off the top of my head, sure:
http://tancredo.house.gov/

The Yell, this is an senseless non-sequitur. I asked for a single example where Republican intransigence on an issue to maintain it as a campaign slogan led to achieving or increasing a Republican majority.

Your response is to post Tom Tancredo's web site.

Perhaps you can explain why Tom Tancredo's web site is an example of retaining a Republican majority, because I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Dafydd

Oh, I thought you were asking if any individual races had shown intransigent Republicans winning a majority.

Republican intransigence to Clinton's tax hikes, and the Freedom of Choice Act, and socialized medicine, certainly didn't hurt Newt Gingrich & Co.

2006 was not a year the GOP sought a mandate for hardline immigration enforcement.

The Yell:

Republican intransigence to Clinton's tax hikes, and the Freedom of Choice Act, and socialized medicine, certainly didn't hurt Newt Gingrich & Co.

My goodness, but you have a short memory, The Yell. Who, exactly, did the voters punish after the "government shutdown" over spending and the budget in 1995/1996? In the subsequent 1996 elections, the Democrats picked up 8 House seats and Clinton was reelected. The Republicans picked up 2 seats in the Senate; but they underperformed... they should have picked up net 3.

Clearly, the Republicans did not do well in that election.

As far as your claim about "socialized medicine," you can only be referring to the 1994 elections following the failure of "HillaryCare," right? When the GOP picked up 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate.

Once again, you are either very, very young -- or else, for some reason, you simply can't remember 13 years ago.

The Republicans under House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich absolutely did not run solely on a campaign of "intransigence;" they mostly campaigned on a little thing called the Contract With America. This was a positive agenda of bills and reforms, some to be enacted on the first day, others within the first 100 days of the new Congress, if the Republicans won.

All but two GOP House members signed it. The Contract With America included:

Government reform

On the first day of their majority, the Republicans promised to hold floor votes on eight reforms of government operations:

~ require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;

~ select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

~ cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

~ limit the terms of all committee chairs;

~ ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

~ require committee meetings to be open to the public;

~ require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

~ and implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual Federal Budget.

Major policy changes

During the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, the Republicans pledged "to bring to the floor the [ten] bills, each to be given a full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote, and each to be immediately available for public inspection". The text of the proposed bills was included in the Contract, which was released prior to the election. These bills were not governmental reforms, as the previous promises were; rather, they represented significant changes to policy. The main included tax cuts for businesses and individuals, term limits for legislators, social security reform, tort reform, and welfare reform.

The Yell, this is precisely the opposite of what you advocate: You don't want Republicans to offer an immigration bill that can pass; you want them to run on the platform "We killed immigration reform!"

And you don't even understand why historically, that kind of campaign -- we stopped change -- has never been a winner.

Dafydd

First of all, your notion that 1996 represented a bad year for the Republican Party...James Carville would not agree with you! And Karl Rove would do backflips for those kinds of numbers in 2008. All 535 seats in the House are up for re-election every two years, it is possible to lose every one of them. When you win most, you must be doing something right...

Complaining because the GOP won a majority but not as large as it should have been, is like kicking your TV when your team wins the World Series 5-2, because it should have swept.

I'm glad you appreciate the positive nature of the Contract with America--and I miss that approach to elections--but on the three issues I mentioned, tax hikes, abortion and socialized medicine, the GOP promised nothing but opposition. Whether or not it could override vetoes of its own proposals, the GOP was going to "stop change".

So I maintain: Republican "intransigence" helped build and retain the Congressional majority through the 1990s.

I agree that not having a definite agenda going into an election cripples the Republican Party--but refusing to stop bad liberal legislation is another mortal wound.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)