December 20, 2007
Dec 20 03:38 They Refuse to 'Get It' Dec 20 11:46 Fred's Life Support System Dec 20 14:58 Tancredo Ending WH Bid Dec 20 16:22 Can Fred Thompson Surge? Dec 20 19:19 Straight Talk On Immigration
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006
They Refuse to 'Get It'
The cadre of Clintonistas known as Democracy Corps says that Democrats need to show that they 'get it' about immigration . Here's one way they stressed that point:
We believe this is a progressive approach to illegal immigration that Democrats should embrace without apology. It combines acknowledgment of the problem, pragmatic and tough ideas to stem the flow of illegal immigration with a path to citizenship laden with the kinds of requirements that anyone should meet if they are to attain the honor of being an American citizen. This survey confirms the power of this approach with the electorate.It's impossible to believe that Democrats will get tough in solving this crisis when the budget bill just passed strips out the funding of the double-walled border fence in favor of a single fence. The double-walled fence worked magnificently in San Diego. It will work well elsewhere.
Another reason why it's impossible to picture Democrats getting tough on securing the border is Ted Kennedy's insistence that NCLR have veto power over any immigration legislation. NCLR is a fringe group that believes in open borders.
Anyone that thinks that Democrats will get tough on securing our border is engaged in wishful thinking. They aren't basing their thoughts on anything substantive.
Here's what Democracy Corps suggests candidates and incumbents do to show they "get it" about illegal immigration:
- Recognition of the problem: 'get it.' Candidates ignore the issue at their peril. It is essential to convey an appreciation that illegal immigration is out of control and needs to be addressed immediately and seriously. If leaders do not show their own frustration with the problem, they will not be heard on this issue and many others.
- Attack Bush for losing control of the problem. A strong critique of the Bush administration's failure to address this issue shows that we understand the problem and empathize with voters' frustration with the lack of leadership on this issue.
- Enforcement at both the border and with employers. Voters believe that controls at the borders and enforcement in the workplace have disappeared, allowing the problem to get out of control. They are particularly angry with companies that are looking for cheap labor, partially explaining why this is happening.
- Opposition to non-essential benefits. The public's leading concern about illegal immigration is that the immigrants get access to non-essential government benefits at a time when government spending is squeezed and taxes are a burden. There is strong opposition to Medicaid, taxpayer-subsidized health care, for illegal immigrants. But they are also strongly opposed to drivers' licenses, an implicit recognition of legal status and claim on benefits.
- Support for emergency health care and education. Most Americans accept access to emergency health care for illegal immigrants and education through high school for the children of illegal immigrants who are U.S. citizens.
- Positive views of new immigrants. Negative attitudes toward immigrants combine with a lot of respect, many in a new survey describing them as 'hard working,' 'family-oriented' and 'trying to be good citizens.' That creates an opening for an inclusive approach, based on America's strength as an immigrant nation. There is strong support, for example, for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. military being able to win nearly immediate citizenship.
- Toward a solution: responsibility and a path to citizenship. A large majority of voters support a path to citizenship if we are serious about having to qualify for citizenship: expelling anyone who has committed a crime, others pay a fine and taxes, learn English, and get in the back of the queue. But if voters hear only the part about a path to citizenship without the responsibilities, they do not support this, and punish incumbent Democrats. But if Democrats 'get it' and are very serious about getting the problem under control, including benefits, their leaders can get support for solving this problem in ways consistent with our values.
Democrats can rail all they want about President Bush but their record is clear. Democrats see the pathway to citizenship as their newest Democratic voter registration drive. That's why they haven't taken enforcing the border seriously.
Furthermore, it's impossible to think that they're serious when they cut funding the building of the border fence in half.
I'd further suggest that more people would agree with a pathway to normalization rather than a pathway to citizenship. I'd bet that the numbers would be overwhelmingly in favor or normalization than on citizenship.
The fact that they're even talking about this subject indicates that they're worried about the impact the immigration issue will have on the House races. That's why candidates like Dick Day likely will push immigration against first term incumbents like Tim Walz.
Here's an entirely laughable part of their report:
With the problem out of control, voters believe immigrants are taking more from the country than they give. The public feels this way when asked only about "immigrants," not even "illegal immigrants." The view that immigrants take more than they contribute is most pronounced among some key demographic segments, including senior citizens and men with no more than a high school education. In congressional battleground districts, a clear majority (54 to 36 percent) believes immigrants take more from the country than they give.That first paragraph is code for "Those hicks and bigots don't understand this immigration thing." Who's to say that they don't understand things just fine? Perhaps it's the Carville types that don't put a high priority on our sovereignty that are causing the problem.
That leads almost 40 percent of the voters to say that "immigration is among the country's biggest problems" and reject the idea that immigration does not rank with our top problems, like Iraq, health care and energy independence.
The second paragraph is utterly laughable. In this paragraph, they argue that health care and energy independence are more important than solving the immigration crisis. Earlier in their report, they argue that Democrats have to prove to people that they "get it" with regards to immigration. They also say that immigration is an issue that generates lots of passion with Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.
That's because citizens understand just how important this issue is. This highlights why Democrats still don't get it. It's doubtful that they ever will.
Posted Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:41 AM
No comments.
Fred's Life Support System
Various pro life organizations have endorsed Fred Thompson in recent days, including the MCCL and the North Carolina Right to Life . Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com also lists other state right-to-life organizations that have endorsed Sen. Thompson. Let's start with the North Carolina Right to Life endorsement:
"By endorsing Fred Thompson for President, North Carolina Right to Life PAC wants all North Carolinians to know Senator Thompson's long-standing pro-life record," Barbara Holt, the president of the group, told LifeNews.com.Here's some of the other state right-to-life organizations that've endorsed Fred Thompson:
Holt cites Thompson's "unwavering commitment to protecting unborn children from abortion, and our belief in his ability to win" as other reasons to back his presidential bid.
"As President, Fred Thompson will be a strong advocate for life at all stages," Holt told LifeNews.com.
Holt said Thompson had a 100 percent pro-life voting record during his tenure in the Senate representing Tennessee and that be thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be reversed.
While supporting adult stem research which has produced 72 therapies, Fred Thompson opposes embryonic stem cell research which requires the destruction of a living human embryo and to date has produced no cures, North Carolina Right to Life explained.
With the pro-life group's political action committee backing Thompson, the GOP hopeful now has the support of statewide pro-life groups from California, Minnesota, Vermont, South Carolina, Wyoming, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and New York.Here's the MCCL (Minnesotan Citizens Concerned for Life) endorsement:
The MCCL board of Directors, after a thorough review of all options, unanimously passed the following resolution at its November 17, 2007, meeting: "Be it resolved that the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life board of directors supports the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement of Fred Thompson for President of the United States."One thing that's been striking has been the consistency Fred Thompson has had on life matters, whether it's on human cloning, embryionic stem cell research or abortion. Another thing that jumps out is that Sen. Thompson has consistently held a pro life view for over two decades. That's a direct result of thoroughly thinking things through before announcing that position.
Pro-life citizens should not be surprised that the media have cast former Senator Thompson in a negative light; his record in the U.S. Senate is 100% pro-life. Therefore any misstatements he might make on our issues become national headlines. Most national polls show that he runs within a few percentage points of defeating pro-abortion candidates Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Several other states have already followed NRLC's lead in supporting Fred Thompson.
This isn't just on the life issue, either. The foundation for Sen. Thompson's belief system was created when he read Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" when he was still in college. That's why he's a giant on states' rights issues. I'd put his Tenth Amendment record against anyone's in the field, including Rep. Paul. (I'd also put Sen. Thompson's libertarian record against Ron Paul's, too.)
Here's the statement from the California ProLife Council :
"There are so many pro-life candidates in the race," said Lawrence Lehr, PAC Chairman. "But Fred Thompson is clearly the one, consistently pro-life candidate with the ability to win in November. It is important that pro-life voters rally around a candidate that can make a difference."CPLC also included this in their statement:
Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and President Reagan's Mexico City policy. While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.The best summarization I can think of is to say that Sen. Thompson's position on life issues has been as consistent as it's been comprehensive.
Voters deserve a person who's thought things through, who's stayed consistent with their beliefs. That's the only way to establish credibility with the voters. That candidate is Fred Thompson.
Posted Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:51 AM
No comments.
Tancredo Ending WH Bid
Tom Tancredo has succeeded in making hardline immigration enforcement a mainstream issue. Unfortunately for him, that didn't bring viability to his presidential bid. That's why Rep. Tancredo is likely to end his campaign today :
Tom Tancredo, a once-obscure Colorado Republican congressman who helped push his hard-line stance on immigration into the national mainstream, is expected to announce Thursday that he will end his long-shot bid for the White House.People have criticized Tom Tancredo's immigration beliefs. Fortunately for people who believe in the rule of law and in the principle of sovereignty, Rep. Tancredo didn't moisten his finger to see which direction to take. He kept forcing his beliefs into the political mainstream.
The move may come as a relief to employers in such industries as agriculture and hospitality, many of whom tend to support GOP candidates yet depend on immigrant labor and favor guest-worker programs such as those advocated by President Bush.
It's a fitting tribute to Rep. Tancredo that people are agreeing with him. People are looking for principled politicians. That's what Rep. Tancredo is. Unfortunately, his is a one topic candidate.
Michelle Malkin is speculating that Tancredo will endorse Fred Thompson :
Some observers suggest that Tancredo, like friend and fellow immigration enforcement advocate Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King , might throw his support to Fred Thompson. Would Tancredo's supporters follow? It's not a given. Three other candidates, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, rank higher than Thompson in Numbers USA's assessment of the candidates' proven records on immigration and border security (as opposed to their election-year promises).If Tancredo endorses Fred Thompson, it's likely that the vast majority of Tancredo's supporters will go to Thompson because Hunter isn't a viable candidate and Romney isn't remotely close to being a conservative.
Check back later for more updates.
UPDATE: I was wrong. Tom Tacredo endorsed Mitt Romney. Who would've thunk it that a hardline conservative could've endorsed liberal Mitt Romney?
UPDATE II: The Thompson campaign has responded swiftly to Tom Tacredo's dropping out of the race and his endorsement of Mitt Romney. They've responded by sending out Steve King, who earlier this week endorsed Sen. Thompson. Here's the trascript of Rep. King's brief statement:
REP. STEVE KING: I'm Congressman Steve King.As I said earlier, I appreciate the fight that Tom Tancredo's led to make hardline immigration reform a mainstream position. That said, I still don't understand why a staunch conservative would endorse a northeastern liberal.
I want to thank Tom Tancredo for putting his head and his heart and his soul into this presidential race. He's advanced the immigration issue with border security and the rule of law tremendously, and that's to his great credit.
He and I disagree on who will carry that ball from now on.
I've put my head and my heart and my efforts behind Fred Thompson because he is the one who will define what amnesty is not what amnesty isn't. Fred Thompson will stand up for the rule of law. I don't have that confidence in any of the other candidates. That's why I'm here.
I'm going to continue to carry this fight. I hope Tom Tancredo continues to carry this fight. However this breaks in the end, he'll be my friend and I appreciate what he's done for all of us.
One thing this shows is that Fred Thompson's communications unit is definitely up to speed. Rep. King's statement was posted less than an hour after Rep. Tancredo's endorsement of Gov. Romney.
Posted Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:02 PM
No comments.
Can Fred Thompson Surge?
That's the title of JB Williams' latest column for the National Ledger. If you believe Romneyphile Hugh Hewitt , the answer is no. If you're asking pundits with credibility, though, like David Yepsen , the answer is a definite yes. Let's start with Hewitt's written lovefest for Romney:
The Huckabloom is off the rose. Fred didn't rally. Senator McCain is still a great American, a lousy senator and a terrible Republican. (McCain-Kennedy; McCain-Feingold; The Gang of 14).I hope Hugh Hewitt wakes up sometime soon. Hewitt's sounding like Harry Reid when Reid told people that the surge had failed...last April :
"The president has a choice to make in the coming days: Cling to the discredited policies that have led our troops further into an intractable civil war, or work with a bipartisan majority of Congress to make us more secure," said Majority Leader Reid.Reid said that the surge had failed before the surge was implemented. In this instance, Hugh Hewitt has told us that Fred Thompson's rally never happened before Sen. Thompson's barnstorming bus tour through Iowa is even 3 days old. My question for Mr. Hewitt is simple: When did you get the gift of seeing into the future? Or is it that you're doing whatever it takes to stop a Thompson rally?
Next, let's look at David Yepsen's opinion of the race:
But after a sluggish start, Thompson has sensed an opening in Iowa, and he's moving decisively to exploit it. The opening arises from a combination of Romney's changes of position on social issues and Huckabee's stumbles on foreign-policy questions and immigration.Finally, let's look at JB Williams' article:
After his winning performance in the Des Moines Register's debate, Thompson has embarked on a lengthy bus tour of the state. During these final days, his campaign says he'll hold events in 50 communities and will visit 54 of the 99 counties.
On Monday, he picked up the surprise endorsement of Congressman Steve King. Of all the endorsements flying around these days, that one could move the most numbers. It sends a powerful signal from one of Iowa's most conservative leaders to others on the right around the state: We've now got a horse we can ride.
Tom Tancredo is expected to announce his withdrawal from the race today. Even though he has only .6% support nationally, who he decides to endorse can make a big difference. The same goes for Hunter and his 1.3%. In looking at who these two conservatives are most likely to endorse, Thompson is the most logical answer.This makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't Duncan hunter and Tom Tancredo endorse Fred Thompson considering his hawkish policies about securing the border? They certainly wouldn't endorse Huckabee because of his views on amnesty and they certainly wouildn't endorse Romney because he isn't a trustworthy conservative. I also agree with Mr. Williams in saying that McCain's endorsement will go to Sen. Thompson because they've been good friends for so long.
Both of these men are running on very strong border security. This alone makes it all but impossible for either of them to ever endorse Giuliani, Huckabee or Romney due to their past records on illegal immigration issues. McCain's position on amnesty for illegals and civil rights for terrorists, make it equally unlikely that either of these men could endorse him.
This leaves the only true conservative in the race, Fred Thompson. If both men endorse Thompson, look for their supporters and some of those undecided voters to shift behind the Thompson campaign in short order.
If and when McCain pulls the plug on his campaign, he is also most likely to endorse his long time friend Fred Thompson.
In addition to that, I remember McCain being asked by Tim Russert if he would've picked John Ashcroft to be his AG. McCain said he wouldn't have, that he would've asked Fred Thompson to be his AG choice.
Here's Williams' opinion on Romney's chances:
Mitt Romney: Romney has raised and spent more money than any other Republican candidate and until very recently, he was stuck at or below 10% support nationally. Much of his new support is coming from people who once supported Giuliani. Yet some of his early supporters have already defected to Huckabee.It's my opinion that, once we get beyond the 'looks presidential phase', people will look for someone who is presidential. Rudy and Fred are the only people who are presidential in the race.
In short, Romney's support is very volatile. In fact, main stream Republicans, even those who have polled for the top tier candidates for months, continue to shift around from perceived "front-runner" to the "front-runner" of the week. The top four are secure as only the top four. But who in the top four will ultimately emerge as the nominee remains totally fluid.
Being presidential means being seen as reliable, intelligent and having the right policy positions. Obviously, Mitt Romney is a highly intelligent person. To argue otherwise is foolish. Considering all the different beliefs he's had, he certainly can't be viewed as reliable. Until Gov. Romney meets that reliability threshold, it won't matter what policy positions he's taking because voters won't trust him to hold those positions.
Let's compare that with Fred Thompson. Fred's been a federalist since he read Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" in 1963. Fred then returned home to become the first Republican in his family. He also started the first Young Republicans club in his hometown.
Fred has a 100% pro life voting record. Gov. Romney says that he's pro life but Sen. Thompson has a lifelong pro life voting record. If that's the choice, why would pro life voters pick Gov. Romney?
Let's also compare Gov. Romney's foreign policy experience with Sen. Thompson's foreign policy experience. Sen. Thompson served on the Senate Intelligence Committee and Foreign Relations Committee. He's developed a plan to topple the Iranian mullahs without firing a shot. He wants to rebuild our intelligence capabilities, especially the HumInt capabilities. He's travelled the world and talked with foreign leaders.
Mitt Romney has...potential. The truth is that we don't know if he'd continue President Bush's liberation policies. We don't know if he'd be an Arabist or staunchly pro-Israeli.
I'd bet good money that Hugh Hewitt's prediction that "Fred didn't rally" has more to do with casting Gov. Romney in the role of inevitable winner than anything else. I'd bet that he's hoping to persuade people into thinking that a Romney nomination is nothing more than a fait accompli.
While Democrats base their presidential nominations on who looks presidential, the GOP has traditionally picked their candidates based on their policies. When you apply those criteria, it isn't difficult to believe that a Thompson surge is definitely possible.
UPDATE: I was wrong. Tom Tacredo endorsed Mitt Romney. Who would've thunk it that a hardline conservative could've endorsed liberal Mitt Romney?
UPDATE II: The Thompson campaign has responded swiftly to Tom Tacredo's dropping out of the race and his endorsement of Mitt Romney. They've responded by sending out Steve King, who earlier this week endorsed Sen. Thompson. Here's the trascript of Rep. King's brief statement:
REP. STEVE KING: I'm Congressman Steve King.As I said earlier, I appreciate the fight that Tom Tancredo's led to make hardline immigration reform a mainstream position. That said, I still don't understand why a staunch conservative would endorse a northeastern liberal.
I want to thank Tom Tancredo for putting his head and his heart and his soul into this presidential race. He's advanced the immigration issue with border security and the rule of law tremendously, and that's to his great credit.
He and I disagree on who will carry that ball from now on.
I've put my head and my heart and my efforts behind Fred Thompson because he is the one who will define what amnesty is not what amnesty isn't. Fred Thompson will stand up for the rule of law. I don't have that confidence in any of the other candidates. That's why I'm here.
I'm going to continue to carry this fight. I hope Tom Tancredo continues to carry this fight. However this breaks in the end, he'll be my friend and I appreciate what he's done for all of us.
One thing this shows is that Fred Thompson's communications unit is definitely up to speed. Rep. King's statement was posted less than an hour after Rep. Tancredo's endorsement of Gov. Romney.
Posted Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:02 PM
Comment 1 by Cory at 20-Dec-07 09:01 PM
I've posted this at more than just this blog, but I definitely do not work for Romney's campaign. I want some conservatives, who I feel haven't given Mitt a fair shake thus far, to seriously reconsider their positions. Romney is clearly now the anti-illegal immigration candidate. What candidate can win the support of ALL conservatives...fiscal, defense, AND social? Mitt's the man!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Dec-07 12:34 AM
I've posted this at more than just this blog, but I definitely do not work for Romney's campaign. I want some conservatives, who I feel haven't given Mitt a fair shake thus far, to seriously reconsider their positions. Romney is clearly now the anti-illegal immigration candidate. What candidate can win the support of ALL conservatives,fiscal, defense, AND social? Mitt's the man!
Comment by Cory 20Dec2007
I've stated specifically why Mitt isn't a conservative. I've offered specific proof of his liberal policies. I've shown how he's lied about being a pro life conservative, saying that the conversion happened in 2004, when he was studying the issue of embryionic stem cell research, only to sign a health care bill in April, 2006 that he knew had to include taxpayer-funded abortions.
Calling Mitt the real deal is insulting & intellectually indefensible.
Fred Thompson has consistently stated that we need to enforce the border by building the double fence, beefing up the border patrol & fine employers that hire illegal aliens.
He's been a federalist since 1963. He's always been pro life. He's always been a foreign policy heavyweight.
Mitt Romney is a foreign policy lightweight right when we can't afford someone who'll need on-the-job training.
If Mitt Romney is the GOP presidential nominee, I'll leave the party because the GOP won't stand for anything after that.
Simply put, flip-floppers need not apply.
Comment 3 by Matt Abe at 21-Dec-07 09:42 AM
I read your cross-post at True North (http://www.looktruenorth.com). Thank you for your excellent analysis, especially since it does not at all fit the storyline of the liberal media.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 21-Dec-07 10:36 AM
You're more than welcome, Matt. We'll need tons of credibility if we want to retake the Minnesota House, the US House & keep the White House. I don't know if we'll do that but it's definitely possible.
I'nm betting that nonpartisans won't see the difference between Gov. Romney's flip-flops & embellishments and Hillary's embellishments.
When we police our ranks properly, we gain a measure of respect from voters. That's what we should be about.
Straight Talk On Immigration
When it comes to reasonable, well thought out answers, it's difficult to picture anyone who gives more intelligent answers than Fred Thompson. Check out this exchange on immigration:
After the event, Thompson was asked by reporters what should happen to children who are born to illegal immigrants in the U.S., making the children citizens, if their parents are deported. "The parents make that decision, just as parents would under any circumstances," he said. "If they are going to be leaving the country, I would expect them to make the decision to take their child with them. But, if they make other arrangements with a loved one or someone who is here for that child, then they could do that, too."Talk about pitch perfect. That's a thoughtful exchange, especially considering the fact that it was an impromptu question that required an immediate answer. Thinking on one's feet is essential to being a great president. Thinking clearly is even more important. In this instance, we got both.
When asked if the policy allowing those children to have U.S. citizenship should be altered, he said that would require a difficult change to the Constitution.
"That's not really as much of a current issue in terms of our illegal immigration problem as chain migration is," he said. "These children can be used as so-called anchor babies and they can grow up and bring in many, many other members of their family. I think that ought to be limited ... to spouses and children. I think that's where our concentration needs to be focusing."
Here's another strong dose of straight talk from Sen. Thompson:
America is pining for a president that believes in the enforcement of existing immigration laws. That's what they'd be getting from a Thompson administration. We shouldn't accept anything less from the other candidates, whether they're Republican or Democrat.Thompson said the legal immigration system in the U.S. has inefficiencies and people get caught up in the bureaucracy. But he said the rule of law must be the top priority. "We have to look out No. 1 for what is right, what is the law. If you're coming and saying 'It's against the law, but,' I think you've got to have a very good reason, and I very seldom see a reason that justifies the 'but' if it's against the law."
Thompson said the U.S. is capable of making changes to immigration laws that allow employers to meet their work force demands. "We can address, I think, our needs ... without succumbing to the notion that we have to have a constant flow of illegal immigrants," he said. When the same man pressed Thompson further to talk about his plan for illegal immigrants already in the country, the former Tennessee senator said he believes the issue will be resolved through "enforcement by attrition."
Simply put, this is the sanest immigration policy I've heard yet. What's especially appealing is that there aren't any equivocations or rationalizations to Sen. Thompson's policy initiatives. The great thing about his replies is that, while they're devoid of equivocations or rationalizations, they're filled with nuances and thoughtful intelligence.
I've said it before and I'll likely say it again: Fred Thompson's policies are the benchmark, the gold standard in this campaign.
Posted Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:23 PM
No comments.
