Have you listened to Michael Medved’s Friday show? Did you now that in the UK, 12% of all votes went to idiot fringe parties? If 5% of the idiots who had voted for fringe parties have voted for David Cameron,he would be the PM.
“...An analysis of British election results finds that David Cameron and the Conservative Party were deprived of a majority in Parliament by just 16,000 votes, according to the London Times. “Cameron came so near and yet so far. Just 16,000 extra votes for the Tories, distributed in the 19 constituencies in which the party came closest to winning, would have spared us a weekend of negotiation and speculation.”…”
Then there is the lesson of the Utah debacle. The Hedgehog Blog has a photo from the Utah GOP Convention. If it is true, then LOSERTARIANS are the ones tho took out Bennett, and should hang their heads in shame for behaving so irrationally. There are a few jerk losertarians who are horrors, sorry, but that is what they are. I am disgusted by them. I don’t know if I could ever vote for one of their candidates. Then again, Outside the Beltway has some interesting observations about the Bennett situation. Perhaps it is not a tea party victory after all.
“…Moderates are being forced out of both parties, and if the Republican Caucus wants to emerge a stronger and healthier coalition come November, I would suggest a gameplan for maintaining a sense of Ronald Reagan’s big tent and his 80 percent friend, not a 20 percent foe approach. If we lose the Ronald Reagan Republican formation, than our movement will shrivel and die, especially if we don’t reinstate the Eleventh Commandment of Republican politics.…”
Is Michael Medved the lone voice of sanity crying out in the conservative wilderness?
“…Consider the historic campaign of 2008, when President Barack Obama bested John McCain by a solid margin of 7.2 percentage points. According to the authoritative exit polls, the vast majority of voters (74 percent) identified themselves as “white,” and McCain won a landslide among this segment of the electorate, thrashing Obama by a resounding 12 points (55 percent to 43 percent). This was the same margin that George W. Bush commanded among white voters in his 2000 victory over Al Gore. In fact, because of the larger electorate, McCain’s losing effort actually drew 9.5 million more votes overall than Bush’s victorious campaign of eight years before.
Why, then, did Bush win the White House while McCain suffered humiliating defeat? The answer is that in eight years the nonwhite portion of electorate soared — from 19 percent of voters to 26 percent of voters. Among these voters, Obama won by a 4-to-1 margin — easily wiping out McCain’s big advantage among white voters.
For two reasons, these numbers command close attention for anyone concerned about the Republican future….”
Deporting everyone who is here illegally is too expensive. From Outside the Beltway, James Joyner has a fascinating piece from Foreign Policy.
“...To deport the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States en masse, it would take more than 200,000 buses, stretching more than 1,800 miles, according to a December 2009 Center for American Progress (CAP) report. (I did the math, and that would amount to 47.5 feet per bus and 60 people per bus. Of course, in real life, some people would have to be sent home via airplane.)
The cost would be nearly $300 billion over five years, the think tank estimates. (I did the math again, and that would be 110 buses per day at a cost of $25,000 per illegal immigrant, which presumably includes the costs of apprehension, detention, legal proceedings, and transport, based on the methodology in this 2005 CAP report, which uses older numbers.)…”
It may be cheaper to keep illegals here, make them pay a fine, get in the back of the line to citizenship, collect their taxes, etc.
Reid Wilson wrote the following for the National Journal:
“…But in endorsing Arizona’s aggressive immigration policies, several prominent GOP strategists say, Republicans risk alienating Hispanic voters. The most ardent political backers of an enforcement-first approach ― a group that has the ear, and the support, of the conservative base ― often use inartful and ill-considered language in describing people who are in the U.S. illegally. Although the majority of decision makers in Washington, including most Democrats in Congress, say any immigration reform bill must include stronger enforcement pro ― visions, those who use vitriolic rhetoric can make the entire Republican Party appear anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic.
Immigration reform “is becoming the third rail of politics, for Republicans in particular,” GOP pollster Steve Lombardo said. “It used to be Social Security, but I can make an argument now the Republican Party is better off talking about how we may need to raise the minimum retirement age; that we might get in less trouble by talking about policies like that than we do in talking about immigration reform. It’s almost impossible to talk about immigration reform without sounding anti-immigrant.”
Indeed, many Republicans think they’ve seen this script before. When Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pursued an enforcement-only approach to immigration laws in 2006, Hispanics turned their anger against the GOP. In 2004, President George W. Bush won re-election with 44 percent of the Hispanic vote; four years later, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., attracted just 31 percent of Hispanic support and lost the presidential race to Barack Obama.
GOP House candidates won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004; four years later, they won only 29 percent, according to exit polls. That 15-point plunge was much worse than the party’s 4-point drop among whites, 5-point decline among African-Americans, and 10-point fall among Asian voters.
Demographics dictate Hispanic votes are crucial to building a national political coalition. Hispanics are the fastest-growing minority segment of the population, in every region of the country.
In the past two election cycles, Democrats have gained seats in key states where the Hispanic vote is exploding ― including three seats in Arizona, two seats in New Mexico, and seats in such states as Florida, New York, and Texas. Tellingly, Democrats now control all nine districts that border Mexico….”
In the NY Daily News, Andrea Tantaros wrote:
“...Republicans need to start putting together a plan that could appeal to Latinos – capitalizing on, not compromising on, their core values – before the immigration reform debate returns to Washington’s front burner, where it is rapidly headed.
To this end, the GOP should outline a version of amnesty with teeth that permits illegal immigrants to gain lawful status and eventual citizenship – but not without any penalties for offenders. Impose a waiting time but start taxing would-be citizens immediately.
Sending all illegal immigrants back to their native country for good, which is what many in the GOP still claim to support, is not just an unrealistic option, it’s a stupid one. Take a look into almost every restaurant kitchen in New York City. The argument that illegal Hispanics are taking all jobs that legal Americans want is hard to believe. Often, whites don’t want to do the work in many fields that Latinos dominate, such as hospitality, food service and agriculture….”
She brought up something that is terribly important. Why are we allowing people from Islamic countries, a few of whom have proven ties to people who want to destroy us, have preference in coming to the US over other countries?
“…While we’re at it, we should increase the legal quotas coming from Latin and European countries even as we shut the border. The legal immigration quotas were adjusted in recent decades to take fewer “Western” immigrants and more immigrants from South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Let’s reverse that and level the playing field so that more Hispanics can enter the country legally…”