Is Bush going to veto the border fence? Update: Bill not formally presented yet; Update: Mexico to take up fence with UN?

posted at 3:41 pm on October 9, 2006 by Allahpundit

Kaus explains it all to you.

Not that it matters. As previously reported, they’ve loaded up the appropriations bill with so many loopholes that they won’t have to build it even if he does sign.

In which case, why doesn’t he sign? Why would he do something as insanely antagonistic to his own base as torpedoing what’s already only a cosmetic gesture towards border security? It can’t be for Hispanic votes; the number of Republican voters he’d alienate by vetoing the bill would surely outnumber the Latino voters he’d pick up.

Captain Ed unpacks the legal nuances — in a nutshell, the current congressional recess is sufficiently short that the bill might be deemed passed, not vetoed, due to Bush’s inaction — but that’s besides the point. I’m with Derbyshire: if Bush insists on doing Mexico’s bidding again, if he can’t bring himself to endorse even a symbolic measure of border enforcement, then I hereby swear before the Hot Air readership that I’ll vote a straight Democratic ticket next month. I live in New York so it won’t matter, but one symbolic turn deserves another.

Update: Rob Port says this is the last day for Bush to sign before the pocket veto takes effect. Assuming that a pocket veto is what we’re dealing with here. Like I said, read Captain Ed for the nuance.

Update: Enough’s enough says the boss, who doesn’t want to say “I told you so” but…

Actually, I think she does want to say it.

Update: Patrick Ruffini says Bush will sign the bill. Yeah? When?

Update: Hold the phone. Has the bill been formally presented to Bush for signing yet? Reader Brian F. e-mails:

You will not see an announcement of a signing today. The bill has not been presented to the White House yet. The Constitution gives the President ten days to sign a bill after presentation. At Thomas.gov “presentation” is explained: “In actual practice, the Clerk, or the Secretary of the Senate when the bill originated in that body, delivers the original enrolled bill to a clerk at the White House and obtains a receipt. The fact of the delivery is then reported to the House by the Clerk. Delivery to a White House clerk has customarily been regarded as presentation to the President and as commencing the 10-day constitutional period for presidential action.”

As of three minutes ago, Thomas.gov reports the results for HR.6061 as “9/29/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 80 – 19. Record Vote Number: 262.” The bill has not been officially/legally “presented” to the White House so the ten day clock has not started. I suspect the President is waiting for a more politically opportune time to sign this, closer to the election.

I think he’s right. Here’s the page at Thomas for H.R. 5631, the appropriations bill that Bush has already signed. Formal presentation is noted on September 29. Compare and contrast with H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act. No presentation yet. I don’t think he’s on the clock yet.

Update: Does Mexico have the stones to refer the border fence to the United Nations? Let’s hope so. Nothing, but nothing, would undermine American support for the UN as much as that usurpation of national sovereignty would.

Update: Captain Ed confirms with a Hill staffer that the GOP has delayed presenting the fence bill for signature until later this month for maximum electoral effect.

So we’ll get our symbolic gesture towards border security after all. Victory!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Gregor:

I should be more motivated by what? A Republican Party that couldn’t even find a candidate to run against the Democratic Representative we have? (Arkansas 4th)

A Republican Party, on the National level, that couldn’t be troubled to support a real Conservative against Blanche Lincoln two years ago? Jim Holt got 42% of the vote with about $2500 dollars in advertising money. And some of that was mine.

Nope. They were hanging onto the money to get Lincoln farging Chaffee re-elected, I guess. But that’s much more important….to them.

But not me. Will I vote Democratic? I’m about as likely to do that as I am to convert to Islam and start banging my head on a rug five times a day. But that surely doesn’t mean that I have to vote for an Open Border, pro-Abortion and Pro-gun control hermaphrodite RINO, either.

And I won’t. There are third parties, and if enough of us vote for them, they won’t be “third” parties for long, now will they?

I can recall folks complaining about everyone voting for old crazy Ross Perot and “sticking us with Bill Clinton”, but if the Republicans had offered us a choice instead of an echoing and inept Bob Dole in ’96, we wouldn’t have been stuck with Bill Clinton as long as we were.

If the Republican Party insists on being “Democrat Lite” on a National level, I don’t need them, and I won’t vote for them. And I surely have quit giving the National Party any money. I’ll pick my own candidates, and they can go to wherever it is they are heading, in their own handbasket.

I’m not going along for the ride, just because that might mean that we elect someone who will be as bad quicker.

jefferson101 on October 9, 2006 at 6:12 PM

Well, Crud. If this happens, I guess I’ll only have one guy to vote for. ‘My’ Congressman remains a pretty good conservative. I’m not going to vote Democrat, ever. I’ll poke my eyes out and cut off my hands first.

I’d give anything for a VIABLE 3rd party with Conservative principles to support, but that ain’t going to happen until absolute disaster strikes nationwide.

Coincidentally, I just got a fundraising letter from the State GOP. Wasn’t even going to reply, but upon this news, I’m sending them a bunch of:
THESE

LegendHasIt on October 9, 2006 at 6:13 PM

OK jefferson, in the cases of the major RINOS, I can’t say I’d vote for them either.

NTWR on October 9, 2006 at 6:17 PM

NTWR,

I think the current administration has betrayed our troops far more than we ever could. Before I get reamed, here me out:

When interviewed about the Haditha marines on CNN back in July he gave some response like “They’ll be punished, if they’re found guilty.”

A proper response to such a question would have been: “We don’t even know if they did anything wrong. They haven’t been tried yet.” Followed up by a questioning of the reporter’s patriotism and loyalty.

Secondly, he hasn’t supported the troops in terms of widening the rules of engagement to allow them to actually defend themselves. This is what Ilario Pantano has been saying since June.

Third, Bush has done nothing about the Marine Corps brass who are more interested in building mosques in Quantico and prosecuting marines than they are in standing up to the press in sticking up for their Marines. Why are the camp pendleton 8 being denied due process?

Fourth, Bush has failed to pursue the enemy in Afghanistan and Waziristan, making the sacrifices of our SEALs, Rangers, and SF soldiers mostly in vain. As reported here, the British now have a hudna with the Taliban in certain places.

Bush isn’t really interested in fighting the war on terror. If he was, he’d call it a war on Islamic Fascism repeatedly and he’d actually fight it (like Sherman, not McClellan).

This open – borders issue is of concern to people who live in big cities that are likely to be targeted by the nuclear weapon built by smugglers coming across our southern border.

PRCalDude on October 9, 2006 at 6:21 PM

Jefferson -
You are completely ignoring the answer to your question .. and that answer is that you do what you’re doing in the primaries. It’s really not that tough a concept. You only hurt yourself by giving up your power. Nobody in here is suggesting that you stick to the party as it is no. We’re suggesting that you work within the system, in the way it was designed. You elect the candidate that you want in the primaries! You make sure that you KEEP POWER first and then you change the make-up that power in the primaries in 2008.

By voting for other parties, or by not voting at all … you accomplish the same thing. You lose power.

Gregor on October 9, 2006 at 6:22 PM

Legendhasit …

Coincidentally, I just got a fundraising letter from the State GOP. Wasn’t even going to reply, but upon this news, I’m sending them a bunch of:
THESE.

Send this instead

Gregor on October 9, 2006 at 6:26 PM

thirteen28

When you tell me how we can actually solve this issue and get the Republican party to actually respect the conservatives it relies on to win, then I will listen to you. But to continue to vote for the same old, same old while the conservative agenda remains stalled (and while Bush tells the base to effectively f— off on the immigration issue) is not going to cut it at this point.

Adopting that kind of victim mentality is exactly what’s wrong with America right now.

You ask me to tell you how to solve this and get our representatives to actually listen to us. Ok. Get behind your party and start putting some of this endless hand-wringing energy to work figuring out how we can band together and utterly and completely defeat the dems next month. You guys have already given up. I have not.

You want to do something useful? Get on the phone and use your email to voice your opinions to your representatives. Tell them you demand a more aggressive offensive against the dems. We have a GREAT story to tell. I cannot fathom all this doom and gloom going on right now. I know we’ve got problems, but damnit, this is a war with the dems. And you do not win the war by conceding defeat. In war bad things happen. You take stock, adjust your tactics and continually move forward.

After we win next month, THEN it’s time to create an uproar that rivals the Dubai Ports outrage. But for God’s sake, if we hope to make ANY progress at all in our own party, we have to WIN this mid-term election.

The dems have a plan alright. Unfortunately, it’s not to protect and defend America from our enemies. It’s to protect the US and the world from us. You, and me.

This election is so much bigger than just this one, admittedly important, issue. Fronts in the battle. And we MUST win the battle. Our job will be so much more difficult if we become the minority party.

techno_barbarian on October 9, 2006 at 6:27 PM

PRCalDude

Bush isn’t really interested in fighting the war on terror. If he was, he’d call it a war on Islamic Fascism repeatedly and he’d actually fight it (like Sherman, not McClellan).

Then you tell me… Exactly WHO do you think would’ve done a better job? And I am sick and tired of the mournful negativity about Iraq. There are some great things going on over there. You do not flip a switch and pull the ME out of thousands of years of tribalism. Damnit, it takes time.

And slinging virtual tomatoes at W isn’t going to change a thing. This exercise is not useful. We drain our energies eating ourselves like a wounded shark in a feeding frenzy. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

The libtards are laughing their asses off at us. Just like our enemies.

techno_barbarian on October 9, 2006 at 6:41 PM

PRCalDude- I completely agree about our troops not being supported enough (or at all), our war not being fought tough enough, and our PC-even-in-the- military attitude hindering our chances at success.
But I think if we let Pelosi et al rip our guys out of the war after all that has already happened, it will be like Vietnam all over again. It would be the ultimate betrayal.

And, the open borders issue is about many things, including being a central issue in the war on islamic fascists. Check this out: Latinos embrace Islam
Islam gaining popularity with Latinos
. Now isn’t that special?

What we need to do is show we want tougher policies and we can do that by contributing to those that further those policies, and being noisy to the capitulators. But voting for the enemy to help our cause? No. It’s like putting Sharia law into effect hoping it will teach the libs how bad it is. It could be undone, but would the country ever be the same?

NTWR on October 9, 2006 at 6:41 PM

Gregor:

Heh!

Arkansas has open primaries. And I sure as all get out participate.

When there’s nobody on the ballot, what does that matter? I’ve voted in too many primaries where I had to write folks in, because the National Party couldn’t be troubled to even work up a contest and get someone (anyone!!!) to run. That includes both House and Senate races.

And as far as the Presidential primaries go, I voted against GWB in both of them, for all the good that did. They have tweaked it so that they get who they want, on a National level. And that looks like the Guilani or McCain options.

And I can’t vote for either of them. I don’t give a flip if they are running against Hillary, it’s still not a choice. McCain already has proven he’ll sell the Constitution out in a heartbeat, and Rudy’s just as bad, if you look at his record.

If folks like that are who the National Party wants to run, it’s time for some of us to find another Party.

Trust me. I’ll vote. I consider it the renewal of my license to throw absolute fits for the next two years. But I’m getting tired of having the Party that I somewhat claim to belong to prove to be as bad as I imagined the other side to be. Or worse.

I’m in Popeye mode. “I’s had all I can stands, ’cause I can’t stands no more.”

If you can tell me what Hillary or her ilk would do to me that Guilani or McCain won’t, I might be receptive. But I don’t see much chance that the difference would be worth mentioning, in the areas that mean anything to me.

You can let them string you along by accepting that “The Democrats would be worse” all you want to. But I’ve been sold that bill of goods for the last 6 years, and I’m not buying any more.

If I can’t see a real difference, there isn’t one.

jefferson101 on October 9, 2006 at 7:00 PM

NTWR,

Latinos = Catholic

Catholics and Muslims worship same God. (Council of Trent II).

Therefore Latinos become Muslims without any stretch in doctrine. I even saw a Mexican with a sign protesting “The Da Vinci Code” that read: “Show us the same respect you showed our Muslim brothers!” Isn’t that charming?

But I think if we let Pelosi et al rip our guys out of the war after all that has already happened, it will be like Vietnam all over again. It would be the ultimate betrayal.

Nope. A new Shia state would align itself with Iran. The Arab Sunnis and Shias start fighting. The West benefits. The faultline in Islam is there to be exploited. Will we be smart enough to do it? Pelosi, if she pulls everyone out, will at least give up the pretense of fighting.

Techno,

Then you tell me… Exactly WHO do you think would’ve done a better job? And I am sick and tired of the mournful negativity about Iraq. There are some great things going on over there. You do not flip a switch and pull the ME out of thousands of years of tribalism. Damnit, it takes time.

It’s not tribalism, it’s Sunni/Shia violence. It’s had 1200 years and still counting. It’s Islam.

It’s about to get interesting.

PRCalDude on October 9, 2006 at 7:03 PM

jefferson101

If I can’t see a real difference, there isn’t one.

You really believe that there is no difference between the GOP and the donks?

You are either blind or willfully self-deceptive. You’re entitled to your opinion and to vote as you wish. But that statement on its face is ludicrous.

techno_barbarian on October 9, 2006 at 7:08 PM

Does Mexico have the stones to refer the border fence to the United Nations? Let’s hope so. Nothing, but nothing, would undermine American support for the UN as much as that usurpation of national sovereignty would.

So true AP.
Is Mexico willing to take this ploy to it’s logical next step?
Will it willingly sacrifice it’s daughters to UN Peacekeepers?

Stephen M on October 9, 2006 at 7:11 PM

I’m thinking that there is a lot of posting and not much thinking going on here….
“That little Clinton break was soooo good for America, I sure would love to do that again!”

TBinSTL on October 9, 2006 at 7:11 PM

You want to do something useful? Get on the phone and use your email to voice your opinions to your representatives. Tell them you demand a more aggressive offensive against the dems.

If I put as much energy into writing a novel as I have in writing emails to Rep. McCaul and Sen.’s Cornyn and Hutchinson, I’d have to change my name to Leo Tolstoy. Believe me, they have definitely heard from me … again, and again, and again, and again and … you get the picture. From immigration, to the Iraq War, the Camp Pendleton 8, Haditha, out of control spending, judges, interrogation techniques, NSA wiretaps, the 9/11 (show trial) commission, and so on – at least one of my congresscritters, and often times all three, has received an email regarding these issues. So it’s not like I haven’t been doing what you suggest – I’ve been doing it in bunches.

This election is so much bigger than just this one, admittedly important, issue. Fronts in the battle. And we MUST win the battle. Our job will be so much more difficult if we become the minority party.

I agree with your point here. Nevertheless, controlling our borders is a big component of national security AND a huge issue with the Republican base. Hopefully Bush will at least sign this bill and let the camel’s nose get poked into the enforcement tent. But if he were to refuse to sign the bill, then not only would he be saying that border security is not an important part of national security, he would be doing exactly as I characterized – telling the base to go f— themselves. At that point, the difference between him and the democrats (and thus his need for a republican congress) shrinks even further.

It doesn’t take a victim mentality to see that either – just simple observation.

thirteen28 on October 9, 2006 at 7:14 PM

I think he’s right. Here’s the page at Thomas for H.R. 5631, the appropriations bill that Bush has already signed. Formal presentation is noted on September 29. Compare and contrast with H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act. No presentation yet. I don’t think he’s on the clock yet.

Glad somebody got around to doing a tiny bit of research….
A lack of restraint has been going around here lately.

TBinSTL on October 9, 2006 at 7:15 PM

Update: Does Mexico have the stones to refer the border fence to the United Nations? Let’s hope so. Nothing, but nothing, would undermine American support for the UN as much as that usurpation of national sovereignty would.

God I hope so. Not only would doing so undermine support for the Useless Ninny’s, it would also severely undermine the position of all the open borders advocates in Washington and elsewhere. The call for border enforcement would only get louder and bring it to the forefront (along with the other, obvious issues) in 2008.

thirteen28 on October 9, 2006 at 7:18 PM

PRCalDude

It’s not tribalism, it’s Sunni/Shia violence. It’s had 1200 years and still counting. It’s Islam.

It’s about to get interesting.

I agree with you that islam is a big part of it, but I assure you, it’s EXACTLY tribalism that’s causing a lot of the problems in the ME.

And interesting doesn’t begin to describe the situation.

techno_barbarian on October 9, 2006 at 7:34 PM

thirteen28

at least one of my congresscritters, and often times all three, has received an email regarding these issues. So it’s not like I haven’t been doing what you suggest – I’ve been doing it in bunches.

Excllent! I enthusiastically applaud your efforts.

But if he were to refuse to sign the bill, then not only would he be saying that border security is not an important part of national security, he would be doing exactly as I characterized – telling the base to go f— themselves. At that point, the difference between him and the democrats (and thus his need for a republican congress) shrinks even further.

But you make my point… If. If. If. Look at the amount of energy and emotion being expended here on just the POSSIBILITY that W might not sign this thing. As I said before, not a productive exercise.

I’m with you most of the time thirteen28, but there is no way I’m throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I’m in this to win. Not to give up power just so I can make a point.

techno_barbarian on October 9, 2006 at 7:41 PM

techno_barbarian:

Show me some difference, I think is what I said.

Do you want to be tortured to death slowly, or die right now?

For most of the last 6 years, with a couple of notable exceptions, that’s the only difference I can see.

Tell me what having a Republican President and at least a partially Republican Congress has accomplished in 6 years, please?

Oh, yeah. We have the Medicare prescription drug coverage. We have huge overspending. We have exactly how many useless Government programs that have gone away? Remind me about those, I forget.

I see two Supreme Court Justices, one of which the base forced him to nominate, John Bolton, and the end of the Assault Weapon ban, which Bush would have signed back into law if Congress would have re-instated.

Beyond that?

We’re porked either way. The Rino’s are just making it last longer and enjoying it more.

jefferson101 on October 9, 2006 at 7:44 PM

Allahpundit: The new democratic base. I did that once and we got Clinton.

wdmdoug on October 9, 2006 at 7:44 PM

I’m getting the feeling we have DailyKos plants in here posting this crap.

Gregor on October 9, 2006 at 6:00 PM

You must be old enough to be benefiting from the “free” prescription drugs Bush gave you at my expense and retired on the backs of unskilled immigrant workers who benefited from the social programs and education, again at my expense.

Valiant on October 9, 2006 at 7:49 PM

jefferson101

Do you want to be tortured to death slowly, or die right now?

Neither. I’m not a victim. Nor am I a defeatist.

Tell me what having a Republican President and at least a partially Republican Congress has accomplished in 6 years, please?

d

We aren’t a socialist union with a parlimentary government, as al-Gore and jfkerry would’ve moved us closer to, for one.

We’re porked either way. The Rino’s are just making it last longer and enjoying it more.

Like I said. I’m not a defeatist. I’ve only got one vote and I know how I’m going to use it. You do what you have to. But I don’t think you’re going to like what you’d like to make happen.

You really think the dems are a better way to go? That thought is unfathomable to me.

techno_barbarian on October 9, 2006 at 7:54 PM

Valiant …

Huh? Did that post have anything to do with what I wrote? How so? And how does that quote indicate my age?

Gregor on October 9, 2006 at 7:56 PM

In the end, you’re right techno. Hopefully Bush will do the right thing and everybody here (including myself) were just overreacting. But dayum, it’s frustrating watching the way the RINO’s and Bush have squandered our advantage.

Nevertheless, I hope the field of candidates for ’08 have research staffs that read stuff like this and realize what a hot-button issue this is with the base.

thirteen28 on October 9, 2006 at 7:59 PM

Gregor,

We’re not Kossacks, we’re just extremely bent out of shape.

Techno,

I’m going to read that article. Looks interesting.

PRCalDude on October 9, 2006 at 7:59 PM

Tell me what having a Republican President and at least a partially Republican Congress has accomplished in 6 years, please?

Maybe you should consider what the Republican Administration has prevented. Take a look at the Europeans. They’re practically tripping over themselves trying to appease Islam. That’s what the dhimmicrats want for us.

RedWinged Blackbird on October 9, 2006 at 8:07 PM

Valiant …

Huh? Did that post have anything to do with what I wrote? How so? And how does that quote indicate my age?

Gregor on October 9, 2006 at 7:56 PM

As a Reagan conservative, I find myself in a similar situation as he did when his party left him. There has to be some logic behind your blind loyalty to the party of Lincoln (Chafee). I was just trying to figure it out. Sorry if I offended you.

Valiant on October 9, 2006 at 8:08 PM

Maybe you should consider what the Republican Administration has prevented. Take a look at the Europeans. They’re practically tripping over themselves trying to appease Islam. That’s what the dhimmicrats want for us.

It’s hard to imagine appeasing Islam any more than Bush has. He prayed in a mosque, added the Qur’an to the Whitehouse library (he needs to read it), he let 15,000 more Saudis in, his constant RoP BS, having imams over to Whitehouse dinners, condemning the Danish cartoons. He’s a dhimmi. The Republicans are dhimmis. Dhimmis practicing despicable dhimmitude.

PRCalDude on October 9, 2006 at 8:19 PM

It’s hard to imagine appeasing Islam any more than Bush has.

Hard to imagine? You don’t have to. You can read about it here and here and here

RedWinged Blackbird on October 9, 2006 at 8:59 PM

Gregor:

I have a larger version of that one on the same page. Yeah, I send them out too, but they are old enough that they have almost become cliche, and familiar enough to go directly into the trash when the envelope is opened.

With mine, they have to look closely to make sure that they aren’t throwing away real money.

LegendHasIt on October 9, 2006 at 9:00 PM

PRCalDude:

My sentiments exactly.

I don’t want our Administration to declare war on Islam as a whole, no. But I am getting tired of the ceaseless attempts to assuage hurt feelings and feigned outrage from CAIR and their running buddies.

If it smells like one, has a white stripe down it’s back, and raises it’s tail whenever approached, it’s a Skunk. And as long as that Skunk announces that it’s sole mission is to impose Islam on the United States, it deserves the same consideration any other attempt to “impose” anything on us gets.

They can get over it and learn to live with everyone else, or they can’t. And if they can’t?

Sooner or later, I suspect that enough of us will smarten up. But the butcher’s bill will be a lot higher than it would be if we do it now.

Sadly, I see minimal evidence of either Party being very smart that way. So we’re going to lose a couple million Americans first. How many Muslims we lose is still going to be determined, but I suspect that at that point, the count won’t much matter to most of us.

jefferson101 on October 9, 2006 at 9:05 PM

Valiant …

There has to be some logic behind your blind loyalty to the party of Lincoln (Chafee)

I’m loyal to my party yes. Are you saying that’s a “bad” thing? I guess that puts you in the traitor category, huh?

Am I going to blindly support those candidates who are not loyal to our voters? NO, and I never said I was. Now don’t go ignoring that last sentence in your reply! I specifically and clearly stated that we needed to vote these people out of our party during the primaries. Obviously, you’re one of those who are simply ignoring that there IS such a thing as a primary which is designed for that exact purpose.

As I stated before … it’s really not a tough concept to understand – unless you’re purposely ignoring this. That was the basis of my “DailyKos” plant post.

But you’re ignoring this right now – aren’t you? We keep getting the same responses, asking why we would continue to support these RINOS even as some of us continue to say that is not what we are saying. We’re saying vote them out in the primaries.

There it was again. Did you catch it? PRIMARIES!

Now you will ignore that, and ask how I can be so loyal and keep voting for the same people.

Just for you … PRIMARIES!

Those who feel it’s somehow better to place their vote next to candidates who have no chance of winning accomplish the same thing as if they voted for Al Gore. It’s as good as a vote for the other side. If you were a football quarterback and you didn’t like the play your coach just called … that would be like purposely throwing an interception to lose the game.

The voters in here who advocate voting for the other side would be comparable to Terrell Owens. Traitors. How do you argue against that comparison legitimately while arguing that liberals protesting against Iraq are the same thing? It’s ironic, isn’t it?

Please explain to me the difference. The liberals don’t like who’s running the government, so they sabotage every move they make and purposely attempt to cause us to lose the war.

You don’t like who we have running our government, so you’re sabotaging the Republican Party and purposely attempting to cause us to lose this war – instead of following the political procedures and using the primaries as they are designed.

Exactly like the liberals you accuse of being traitors.

It might be worthy to note that us losing the mid-terms will in effect … cause us to lose this war. You’re giving the liberals the power to yank our troops and raise the white flag.

No biggie, right? We can just come back in eight or twelve years, regain the majority, and everything will be fine.

Right. Good luck with that.

Gregor on October 9, 2006 at 9:09 PM

I want to clarify one thing on my last post. I would not call someone a traitor who is legitimately voting for a person they feel is a better candidate. But that is not what is being suggested here in this thread. It’s being suggested by some that they have the intention to purposely vote for the enemy with the sole design of causing us to lose.

That is treason at any level. Whether it be politics, or even a sandlot stickball game.

Gregor on October 9, 2006 at 9:19 PM

John and Ken, on AM 640 KFI, Burbank, ranted for 2 hours today (by their own account) on this topic, only to find out from Congressman Ed Royce, whom I heard on the show, that the bill, as noted in an update, above, hasn’t yet been sent to the President. Many bills are with the clerk and are handled one-by-one. This one might be sent to the pres. as early as tomorrow.

Today was hard to reach the WH and others who know due to holiday. Mr. Ed Royce spoke with the liaison btw. the WH and Congress, who assured him that this bill will be signed.

Also from the J & K site, this link on the 700 miles fence

Entelechy on October 9, 2006 at 9:46 PM

Gregor

You don’t like who we have running our government, so you’re sabotaging the Republican Party and purposely attempting to cause us to lose this war – instead of following the political procedures and using the primaries as they are designed.

I’m proud to know you. We need more like you.

There are a few others here who realize what’s really at stake and I salute them as well.

techno_barbarian on October 9, 2006 at 10:21 PM

Good grief. Yeah, voting against the Republicans to “teach them a lesson” is a real good idea. If you’re an idiot.

We’re in the beginning of a war people. A long one.

Can we at least wait and see what the heck happens with the wall issue before we start shooting at our supposed allies?

Sarah D. on October 10, 2006 at 1:34 AM

The Republicannibals are out in force on this thread it seems.

TBinSTL on October 10, 2006 at 2:03 AM

So people are upset at this current batch of Republican leadership as not being right enough, but then they say vote left to teach the not so right a lesson for going left?

So if right isn’t right enough do the right thing and vote left?

EricPWJohnson on October 10, 2006 at 3:47 AM

To follow this Libertarian logic,

the right left the right. So vote left to do the right thing?

Or, if we want deeper tax cuts, cut deeper into the right so all thats left is the right ones and have more of those to the left. The more we have to the left the righter things will be in washington?

Wonder why libertarians call 5% a great year!

EricPWJohnson on October 10, 2006 at 3:50 AM

In the recent Republican primary, I voted for the conservative. But the Republican party got the win for their guy, Linc Chaffee. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes even when you win you lose.

It doesn’t much matter who I vote for next month in terms of the races. Chaffee will lose his Senate seat to the Democrat, Kennedy and Langevin will keep their House seats in the D column.

I might write in “None of the Above”.

Pablo on October 10, 2006 at 8:36 AM

Very few people (Allah) are actually suggesting voting leftie. Most will vote third party or sit out as I said I would do. Those GOP primaries are going really well with Rove and company breaking their backs to defeat conservatives, e.g. Toomey. And if a conservative should win, they will not be supported in the general election (Harris and Randy Graf in AZ who is for sealing the border). You are the traitor against the Constitution if you abet this leadership by returning them to power. Also, don’t assume because I am against nation-building that I don’t support the war in Iraq. If the war has become nation-building, we have no business over there now.

Valiant on October 10, 2006 at 8:40 AM

I’ll second someone’s earlier comment about utilizing the Primary as a tool to enforce GOP change. If your fourth term incumbant is not getting the job done, don’t just vote for his opponent (if reasonably qualified), go out and campaign for him/her. Sweat equity goes a long way in politics.

Also, as thirteen28 is currently doing, regularly write emails to your representatives stating why you are campaigning for their Primary opponant. It doesn’t hurt to write that email to both GOP and Dem encumbants. Even if you didn’t vote for them, lie like the dickens, and tell them your vote is going to their opponant.

natesnake on October 10, 2006 at 10:47 AM

Valiant -

Two things.
One, as I pointed out before … a non-vote or a vote for someone who has no chance of winning is as good as a vote for the Democrats. You take away a vote from the GOP. So your logic is flawed.

Second, you say … “don’t assume because I am against nation building that I don’t support the war in Iraq. If the war has become nation-building, we have no business over there now.

That statement contradicts itself and, as I pointed out earlier …

It might be worthy to note that us losing the mid-terms will in effect … cause us to lose this war. You’re giving the liberals the power to yank our troops and raise the white flag.

One note to Pablo in regards to Chafee … I agree it sucks to have to support Chafee. He’s a scumbag. But it’s important to understand why the GOP supported him. He is a Republican – admittedly in name only – but still a Republican. The GOP was correct in it’s thinking that Chafee was the only of the two primary candidates who had any chance at all of beating the Democrat. So although he votes liberal … it would keep the GOP seat and help hold our majority.

Unfortunately, he’s going to lose that Republican seat anyway, but you have to remember that his primary opponent would have also lost, even worse. There are districts where it is just plain impossible for a conservative to win. It’s called strategy.

What’s more important? Gaining the majority and having to live with Chafee in the group, or running a true conservative in his place and being assured of losing the majority?

Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 11:17 AM

Very few people (Allah) are actually suggesting voting leftie. Most will vote third party or sit out as I said I would do.

It doesn’t make a bit of difference. All three options will produce the same results. We will wake up on 11/8 to find the dhimmicrats in control of the House and possibly the Senate. They will immediately de-fund the war in Iraq, causing American casualties to soar and forcing us to retreat in disgrace. At that point, it really will be another Viet Nam. By 2008, Iraq will be one big terrorist training camp. Of course, the dhimmis will blame it on Bush, and there still won’t be a damn fence.

RedWinged Blackbird on October 10, 2006 at 11:41 AM

What’s important to voters this fall - immigration is way down on the list (those who are against it are most passionate).

Entelechy on October 10, 2006 at 11:53 AM

AC says it better than me though her list is not as exhaustive as it could be. The primary process in the GOP is rigged against conservative ideology. The problem is more than putting up with one RINO to keep power. It is more than failing to secure the border. It is more than growing government to gastronomical [sic] proportions. It is a pattern of mostly liberal policies eminating from the White House under Bush43. It is the inability to recognize the enemy whether it be Ted Kennedy or the teachings of radical Islam.

I agree a liberal Dem Congress would be catastrophic for this country, in large part because Bush will not veto anything as part of his new tone compassionate conservative BS except his current mission in Iraq. At least, betrayed conservatives will have clear battle lines drawn for them, the alternative media will blossom ten-fold more than in the Clinton years, and Allahpundit and others in the industry will become millionares. Lighten up.

Valiant on October 10, 2006 at 12:56 PM

AC says it better than me though her list is not as exhaustive as it could be. The primary process in the GOP is rigged against conservative ideology. The problem is more than putting up with one RINO to keep power. It is more than failing to secure the border. It is more than growing government to gastronomical [sic] proportions. It is a pattern of mostly liberal policies eminating from the White House under Bush43. It is the inability to recognize the enemy whether it be Ted Kennedy or the teachings of radical Islam.

Exactly, though if Robert Spencer is correct, we need to drop ‘radical’ off of our description of Islam.

PRCalDude on October 10, 2006 at 1:12 PM

Robert Spencer is correct,

Valiant on October 10, 2006 at 1:30 PM

Valiant -

I knew you couldn’t do it. You still insist on ignoring one major flaw in your plan to vote independent or alternate party. YOU STILL LOSE! Your plan has absolutely no possitive outcome unless you’re actually a liberal. Nada.

You voting for the “alternate party” or not voting will simply give the win to the Democrat – who is going to be even MORE liberal than what you are bitching about now.

What will you have gained? Nothing.
What will you have lossed? Iraq, a few supreme court nominations, the right to express your religious beliefs, the right to have a say in what your child is taught in school, national security, and for the most part … your country.

You continue to ignore that. It’s like a learning disability or something.

But I guess you’re willing to lose the game just so you can tell the coach to F-off for not letting you carry the ball.

Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 1:32 PM

Errrr … positive

Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 1:39 PM

YOU STILL LOSE! Your plan has absolutely no possitive outcome unless you’re actually a liberal. Nada

Right back at you. We have already “lost” the battle in the things you enumerate above. It is a lose-lose situation for the short term. I am looking for the long-term fix. I could be wrong. Is there any possibility that you are wrong?

Valiant on October 10, 2006 at 2:55 PM

I think I’ll start a liberal blog where I try to persuade libs to vote for Republicans in protest. I think this is the future of blogging.

Perchant on October 10, 2006 at 3:00 PM

No. There’s not. Losing this election will be disaster for this country. And you just gave yourself away as a liberal by saying we’ve already lost the battle in the topics I listed. You sound like John Murtha.

And you STILL continue to ignore the point that what you are doing will result in the same thing you’re bitching about. You ignore ignore ignore.

I knew you were a plant.

Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 3:01 PM

If you haven’t done so go over to Pajamas Media and vote for the name of the new political party.

LakeRuins on October 10, 2006 at 3:42 PM

The Democrats might be better in some ways because they’ve got something to prove. Just like how Nixon could go to China but not LBJ lest he be accused of Communist sympathies, it may be that a Democratic Congress or President would want to take an unusually tough line — at least at first — on terrorism to show the public they’ve got the chops for hardball.
Allahpundit on October 9, 2006 at 2:03 PM

YOU HAVE LOST YOUR FRIGGIN MIND!!! With all due respect AP, you’re starting to worry me bro! How could the DEMS who want DEAD PEOPLE and FELONS to vote, and abortions on every corner, be “Better”? How could these immoral sacks of shit who are TEACHING OUR GODDAMNED CHILDREN ISLAM in direct violation of all the bullshit they concocted over the alleged “seperation between church and state”, be “better”? Are you smoking that California Gold? They’re already teaching your kids how to take it up the ass and smile and you say they could be “better”? On what? Terrorism? Wouldn’t you have to first acknowledge that there IS a war on terror in order to fight it?

Exactly what has a DemoNcrat ever said or done to imply, even remotely, THAT THEY WOULD FIGHT ANYTHING? Last time I checked they were busy trying to “understand” the terrorists and secure habeus corpus rights for them! These are the same people that think SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND PANTIES ON THE HEAD = TORTURE! These are the same people who think that there exists a causal relationship between, poverty and that all enveloping “oppression” which makes blowing oneself up, “understandable”!

That was a really irresponsible statement dude, and to the degree that you are so ignorant of the differences between the most FLAWED child of GOD and the CHILDREN OF SATAN, which is who the liberals are, is staggeringly shocking. They are the people of the Bible who usher in RUIN and TRIBULATION, they are the mechanism through which this land will once again become as Sodom, before the return of the King. Pick up a Bible sometime would ya, buy a vowel and get a clue dude. You can’t possibly win a fight if you are ignorant as to who your enemy REALLY IS!

LUKE 17

28. “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building.
29. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

30“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.

Now since, “eating”, “drinking” and “marrying” are NOT sins, WHAT was going on in SODOM that got them canned? Huh? FAGGOTRY that’s what and it was so severe that homos SURROUNDED A MAN’S HOUSE, so that they could ANALLY RAPE his guests!

Jesus SPECIFICALLY linked his return to the rise of homosexuality, the sin for which he destroyed Sodom, and you think that the CHAMPIONS OF THAT SIN, will be better than flawed Republicans who at least recognize, sin for BEING sin? I mean, with all their flaws is their any doubt that the reason Foley wasn’t trounced early on, is because of Political Correctness? Imagine the Queer Army that would amass had a republican congressman DARED to imply that being a sodomite, might make one more likely than not to schtup a child?

Is there any doubt that most of the Christian “Lite” republicans held their nose when they shook Foley’s clammy hands, preferring decorum to the upset necessary to tell the queer he was in the wrong party? Now, I condemn Hastert and co, for not having the BALLS or FAITH to do exactly that, but there can be no doubt that those who feared the consequences of slamming Foley, are infinitely better than Foley himself. I mean, these people wanted to teach ASS RAPE as a “positive” in the California School System! TO KINDERGARTEN!!!!!!! TO EIGHT YEAR OLDS!!!! Man get in the game, would ya?

Soothsayer on October 10, 2006 at 4:21 PM

AC says it better than me though her list is not as exhaustive as it could be. The primary process in the GOP is rigged against conservative ideology. The problem is more than putting up with one RINO to keep power. It is more than failing to secure the border. It is more than growing government to gastronomical [sic] proportions. It is a pattern of mostly liberal policies eminating from the White House under Bush43. It is the inability to recognize the enemy whether it be Ted Kennedy or the teachings of radical Islam.

Thanks for the link to Ann’s column, I had missed that one, and yet it’s more pertinent now than it was when originally written.

Bottom line is (as others like techno have corrected me above), we conservatives need to wrest control of the primary process from the RNC powers that be. They are the ones who keep moving the party away from its conservative ideals. As Ann noted, last time conservatives did get control of the primary process, we got Reagan in the WH for eight years. Definitely worth the fight.

Republicans are at their best when they are confidently conservative. We can’t do much about this election cycle now except vote to hang on, but when primary season rolls around next time, we need to be ready and we need to take the fight to the RNC leadership.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 5:04 PM

thirteen28- I agree. Let’s get going!

Valiant on October 10, 2006 at 5:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2