The Dems strategery on the immigration issue and GOP opportunities
Thanks to RealClearPolitics (and my friend Randy) for bringing this article to our attention.
The following memo from Democracy Corps, i.e. James Carville and Stan Greenberg, two particularly talented Democrat activists.
From the Democracy Corps website:
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_May_4_2006_Memo.pdf
or from my site in case they take theirs down:
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/Democracy_Corps_May_4_2006_Memo.pdf
Carville and Greenberg describe their view of the appropriate approach for Democrats to take on the issue of illegal immigration, and the vulnerability of Republicans on the issue.
My take on it is that they are exactly right: Republicans are divided on the issue and thus come across as ineffective. Most of the public is against the radically punitive and xenophobic measures coming out of the House of Representatives.
This is indeed an area where the GOP is vulnerable. The Dems can go after members of the House for being extreme and after the President for not enforcing our borders.
As always, the economy is the most important issue to voters according to a recent poll, followed by gas prices, with illegal immigration and the Iraq war bringing up the rear.
So I doubt that this issue is important enough by itself to most Americans for the Democrats to be able to win back either chamber of Congress, but if gas prices stay high and the Iraq war news continues to sound ugly it could be enough to put them over the edge. To be clear, I'm not predicting that will happen, but the GOP should pay close attention to Carville's intuition and their own vulnerability.
My advice to the GOP is to muzzle the xenophobes and take strong action to motivate fiscal conservatives by proving that Congress is able to get back to keeping spending under control. At this point I'm far from convinced that they are able to do so, but the upcoming House-Senate conference on the "emergency" spending bill will be an interesting test.
The House leadership has said they will not allow a bill out of that conference which costs more than President Bush's line in the sand of $92.2 billion. The Senate passed a $106 billion bill with 78 votes, more than enough to override a veto. I don't know whether I would prefer to see the conference cut the bill down to Bush's number so that he signs it or to see a bigger bill emerge and have him veto it.
Bush has too often been the "boy who cried 'veto'", yet has never vetoed a bill. (I think he holds the record in terms of time in office with no veto.) A Congressman with whom I have an occasional dialog told me that President Bush told him this week that Bush would indeed veto a bill bigger than his number. Personally, I'd love to see it. Either way, it will be a minor victory for the GOP as long as the worst case doesn't happen:
If the conference comes out with a bill bigger than $92.2 billion and Bush signs it, the Republicans deserve every bad thing that will happen to them in November, and as long as they keep spending like Democrats I won't be sad to see them go.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 05/10/06 at 05:24:19 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
05/10/06 @ 01:13:42 pm
I - a fiscal conservative Republican-leaning kind of guy - hope the Dmeocrats take both the House and the Senate for two years.
I'm not sure it will happen. But it would be illuminating having losers like Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy and Schumer up there bloviating, the Republicans stewing in the minority, and the practical assurance that Congress will not be able to spend money as easily.
It could remind the Republicans of who they are - in time for 2008.
05/10/06 @ 01:27:06 pm
John,
Thanks for your comment.
I am inclined to agree with you, but I think the damage they would do to the very foundation of our country...not least by trying to impeach President Bush...would be a disaster.
I don't consider myself a strongly partisan Republican. I'm more of a libertarian, and the GOP has consistently abandoned pretty much everything I believe in except for tax cuts. It's just too bad that the Libertarian Party is a bit wacky.
Also, it's very hard to get rid of incumbents, so if the Dems get control of anything in '06 I wouldn't be too optimistic of booting them in 2 years.
Best,
Ross
05/10/06 @ 09:07:52 pm
Ross, It is a shame that the Republicans can't help themselves with their spending. Our children are going to be the ones paying the debt incurred by them. I hope Bush veto's them if they go over the 92.2 billion.
PS. I saw your pictures of Lili, she is adorable.
05/11/06 @ 12:07:11 pm
If a large proportion of Americans are against the "radically punitive and xenophobic" House immigration measure, then they do not understand the problem. I have indicated elsewhere why we must curb population growth which is due entirely to visas, legal immigrants, illegal aliens, and their progeny. We can only do that if we repatriate large numbers of illegal aliens in a humane and compassionate way at their own or their employers' expense. I am in favor of a free enterprise approach to this. Let's put the job of repatriation up for bids with employers tabbed with the cost on a per capita basis for each illegal found in their employ.
The House proposal is not radical in my opinion. Some have objected to the idea of classifying illegals as felons (perhaps along with their employers and those who aid and abet their penetration of our borders and travel throughout our country). I would like to remind everyone that, at least in some jurisdictions, vandalism greater than $250 and trespassing are class 6 felonies. It seems reasonable then to classify similarly those who trash border private property and trespass our borders and our country. This is not a radical idea in jurisprudence.
The words xenophobic, bigotry, racism and nativism are not germane to the discussion of population stabilization and immigration reform. Those who use those terms are part of the problem rather than the solution. We need to curb unfettered population growth and everything that means for traffic, pollution and the demand for petroleum, water, land, food, power, and other natural resources.
According to a poll on Senator Frist's VOLPAC website, 93% of the respondents were opposed to amnesty. I believe amnesty includes everything short of repatriation,especially for all of those illegal aliens who have displaced American workers from jobs by accepting substandard wages.
I predict the GOP will lose big time if the Senate does not shape up and produce an immigration reform bill with effective repatriation and enforcement provisions. We can solve this problem only if the congress provides the tools we need to do so.