Audio: Kyl says Bush’s amnesty plan could be filibustered — by Republicans

posted at 1:38 pm on November 13, 2006 by Allahpundit

Thanks to our friends at the Laura Ingraham Show for the clip. Like Kyl says, the question is whether they have the votes. Do they? Only 36 Senators voted against the Senate immigration bill back in May — and three of those were Democrats. Gulp.

INGRAHAM: “Will the GOP minority in the Senate, Senator Kyl, filibuster the president if he agrees with a broad coalition of Democrats and pro-illegal immigration Republicans on pushing temporary workers and a path to citizenship? Can you see that happening?”

KYL: “I would certainly hope that the majority of Republicans in the Senate would not be complicit in passing legislation that is not wise, that for example, would put everybody on a path to citizenship and say that temporary workers get to get U.S. citizenship, and so on. I would certainly hope that we would have the 40 votes to be able to stop that, but, I don’t know, we’re going to have to wait and see; it’ll be very close.”

INGRAHAM: “I would guess then that’s a yes; a filibuster would be in order if it was necessary.”

KYL: “It would be in order. My only question is whether we’ve got the votes to do it. Clearly a majority of the Republicans in the Senate don’t want that kind of legislation, but whether we’ve got 40 votes, I’m just not sure.”


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

Filibuster the Republicans (rinos I guess). Why not. It beats open borders.

shooter on November 13, 2006 at 1:41 PM

Sure
Rather have that then amnesty
Maybe afterwards you can get together with the blue dogs and just get enforcement and shutting down hte border

Defector01 on November 13, 2006 at 1:44 PM

That would be sweet.

Christoph on November 13, 2006 at 1:47 PM

Not sure if there are 40 who will uphold the Constitution.

Interesting….

More have got to go.

profitsbeard on November 13, 2006 at 1:51 PM

OMG! This is going to be a very, very long 2-years. (and then some)

Editor on November 13, 2006 at 1:53 PM

We’ve got to get organized. Where, Who, NOW !!!

This can’t go through…

stenwin77 on November 13, 2006 at 1:56 PM

Go here and send faxes to your reps, the pres, and senate about your wishes.

A filibuster would be in order but ripping down the President the next two years doesn’t bode well for the ’08 elections.

NTWR on November 13, 2006 at 1:59 PM

If this is true then all I can say is:

YEAH, BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(well, that’s not all I can say, so …

This is exactly what they should do. Number 1, to give into another cluster fornication of an immigration bill like the Senate passed last year would be a total sellout.

Furthermore, given W’s willingness to stab conservatives in the back, this would be sweet, poetic justice.

Of course, this assumes we could get the votes, which given the numbers above is no sure thing.

thirteen28 on November 13, 2006 at 2:00 PM

Kinda makes you think that not having the ‘nuclear option’ is a good thing. Either that or this is a good way to get it and use it against them in ’08. That is of course if ’08 turns out well and we don’t have reps cutting and running on the vote again.

- The Cat

MirCat on November 13, 2006 at 2:07 PM

Even now our republican officials can’t grow a spine? What are they going to do when the dems get 20 million more voters?

jman on November 13, 2006 at 2:08 PM

The following Senators are up to bat in 2008. Now would be a good time to lean on them.

Kid from Brooklyn on November 13, 2006 at 2:11 PM

Kinda makes you think that not having the ‘nuclear option’ is a good thing. Either that or this is a good way to get it and use it against them in ‘08. That is of course if ‘08 turns out well and we don’t have reps cutting and running on the vote again.

- The Cat

MirCat on November 13, 2006 at 2:07 PM

Can we get one thing straight? If I’m not mistaken, the nuclear option Republicans consdered applied only to judicial nominees, not to the filibuster in general. Someone please correct me if that’s wrong.

thirteen28 on November 13, 2006 at 2:14 PM

Here’s the problem. The discussion is already framed. This is “immigration reform” people want “immigration reform” so it will pass. That its amnesty (which people do not want) is irrelevant. There will not be enough votes as pols dont want to be against “immigration reform” – unless R’s can change the tone to call this what it is, passage is inevitable.

lorien1973 on November 13, 2006 at 2:22 PM

Here’s the problem. The discussion is already framed. This is “immigration reform” people want “immigration reform” so it will pass. That its amnesty (which people do not want) is irrelevant. There will not be enough votes as pols dont want to be against “immigration reform” – unless R’s can change the tone to call this what it is, passage is inevitable.

lorien1973 on November 13, 2006 at 2:22 PM

Then our work is cut out for us. We stopped them last time, and I’d venture to guess based on last week’s initiatives that were passed, we have voters from Arizona and Colorado on our side.

Everybody who’s against amnesty should be writing their reps/senators NOW.

thirteen28 on November 13, 2006 at 2:28 PM

Not to ruin the mood here, but how can we favor a Republican filibuster but oppose the Deomocrats doing the same thing on the grounds that it isn’t fair. If there are enough votes for amnesty, then there should be amnesty. It doesn’t matter how horrible of an idea it is to the rest of us.

Eric12470210 on November 13, 2006 at 2:31 PM

People may not want “amnesty” but the majority does want a path to earned citizenship. The republican’s anti immigration stance is hurting the party and the harder we push, the worse it will be. Hispanics are natural conservatives (pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family). We are driving them into the arms of the left where they will be made another class of victims to be exploited for lefty votes. We need a million immigrants a year, and we republicans should be insisting on better control of immigration with much higher limits than are currently allowed while strengthening things that lead to assimilation like Arizona’s new English as the official language initiative.

Patrick H on November 13, 2006 at 2:36 PM

The border isn’t about politics its about the survival of a nation built on God-given rights of it’s citizens.

ANY
Senator that has the testicular fortitude to stand up to the North American Union Bush boys deserves respect for putting principal before politics.

Hell, I’d vote to keep a democrat in office that takes our security seriously.

robman27 on November 13, 2006 at 2:37 PM

You can certainly count Lindsey Graham and McCain as NOT being ones for a filibuster….grrrrr!

SouthernGent on November 13, 2006 at 2:39 PM

People may not want “amnesty” but the majority does want a path to earned citizenship. The republican’s anti immigration stance is hurting the party and the harder we push, the worse it will be. Hispanics are natural conservatives (pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family). We are driving them into the arms of the left where they will be made another class of victims to be exploited for lefty votes. We need a million immigrants a year, and we republicans should be insisting on better control of immigration with much higher limits than are currently allowed while strengthening things that lead to assimilation like Arizona’s new English as the official language initiative.

Patrick H on November 13, 2006 at 2:36 PM

There is already a path to earned citizenship. It’s called “coming here legally and going through all the same channels that other legal immigrants are expected to go through.”

They idea that we should make an exception for one group for the concerns of political expediency only weakens the amnesty case further.

thirteen28 on November 13, 2006 at 2:46 PM

Even in preventing Bush’s amnesty program the flood will continue and the efforts to stop the flood are lame at best. Which means everyone in favor of having more illegals will continue to get what they want, more illegals.

So the wheels continue to spin in the mud and Mexico wins.

IndependentConserv on November 13, 2006 at 2:49 PM

I agree with Patrick Henry.

- Yes, we need to close the border and properly secure it;
- yes, we need to create a system of enforceable penalties for businesses that hire illegal aliens;
- yes, we need to foster an environment which encourages immigrants of all cultures to assimilate into American culture, speaking English, going to school, becoming Americans; and,
- yes, we need to deport the gangsters, criminals, and people who have returned after being deported.

But I no longer believe that we should refuse citizenship to anyone who is presently here illegally. We need to use our voices to shape immigration reform responsibly, rather than simply oppose it. Two moves that would help:

- change the law that says children born of illegal immigrants are automatically citizens. Anchor babies must end, so that we can debate the immigration issue free from the threat of an exploding Hispanic populace voting in a block to the first party that panders to them.

- use a quota for citizenship based on country-of-origin, and count any current illegals that gain citizenship toward their country-of-origin, retroactively. This would prevent the Mexifornia and Texico scenarios that would threaten voting trends for generations.

Jaibones on November 13, 2006 at 2:52 PM

Kyl and the rest should do everything in their power to prevent an amnesty bill of any kind from becoming law. They should not let the President’s victory in this mid-term election keep them from doing what is right.

Mostly on the grounds that it is an abomination unto this country.

Cary on November 13, 2006 at 2:52 PM

Face it, the GOP is finished. You don’t have the votes to stop us. You couldn’t stop us when you were the majority in the senate, why do you believe you can stop us now that you’re the minority? All we have to do is solidify our ranks and garner about 10 Republicans to join our side and you automatically lose. We got about that many last time.

Face it, it’s over. We’re ramming amnesty down your throat whether you like it or not, and we’re creating an entire new generation of Democratic voters that will smash Republican infrastructures throughout the Southwest and the rest of the nation.

You’ll never recover from this.

Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 2:54 PM

PS I would happily provide citizenship for hundreds of hard working illegal aliens who want to be Americans in exchange for the forcible deportation of Hollywood liberals who hate America, on a one to one basis.

Jorge and his family who want to run a small landscaping business for Bill Maher — fair trade.

Esmeralda who works at the light factory for Ted Kennedy — straight up.

Jan the Polish house framer and all six of his brothers for Susan Sarandon and her illegitimate children and common law husband — any day of the week.

Jaibones on November 13, 2006 at 3:01 PM

For those of you that still favor open borders, please go read this post by Michelle from last week.

thirteen28 on November 13, 2006 at 3:05 PM

Here’s the problem. The discussion is already framed. This is “immigration reform” people want “immigration reform” so it will pass. That its amnesty (which people do not want) is irrelevant. There will not be enough votes as pols dont want to be against “immigration reform” – unless R’s can change the tone to call this what it is, passage is inevitable.

Baloney, 70-80% of Americans do not want Amnesty.

People want our laws enforced not reform.

GWB sold out the Republicans so he could get the North American Union (SPP) and Comprehensive Immigration passed.

ScottyDog on November 13, 2006 at 3:06 PM

GWB sold out the Republicans so he could get the North American Union (SPP) and Comprehensive Immigration passed

Ditto

Wade on November 13, 2006 at 3:43 PM

If we REALLY HURRY, we can get them all registered in time for ’08.

seejanemom on November 13, 2006 at 4:03 PM

Not to ruin the mood here, but how can we favor a Republican filibuster but oppose the Deomocrats doing the same thing on the grounds that it isn’t fair.

This is apples and oranges. The Republican objected to Dhimmicrats filibustering the confirmation of a presidential appointment, not a bill up for consideration.

hillbillyjim on November 13, 2006 at 4:09 PM

corrections RepublicanS …should have said nomination rather than appointment… you get the idea

hillbillyjim on November 13, 2006 at 4:11 PM

Face it, it’s over. We’re ramming amnesty down your throat whether you like it or not, and we’re creating an entire new generation of Democratic voters that will smash Republican infrastructures throughout the Southwest and the rest of the nation.

There you go with those Nan Fransicko values again. Hopefully you’ll come out on the rich side of the equation and not end up living in a favella or huffing glue like the underclass I saw in Chile and that exists in most latin countries. Those voters won’t last long when they get felonies for doing things like, oh, I don’t know, killing people because they’re having a bad day or running over a mom and her two children. They’re also all a bunch of zealots, doncha know, and we all know how much you hate those religious folk!

NTWR on November 13, 2006 at 4:42 PM

Grabrook, it is rather the Dems that will be finished if amnesty goes through.
I ask people alot what they think about things and long before the election, everyone I asked, from my oral surgeon to the cable guy agrees on the following 3 things:
1.) They don’t want any more taxes or for taxes to go up.
2.) They hate the French.
3.) They’re tired of illegals. Very tired. To the point where if they were to be deported en masse, no one would be very sad. The taxes we pay to support these people, as well as the headaches they cause are far above the convenience of them “doing the jobs Americans won’t do” (at that wage.)
At least 70-80% of the public doesn’t want amnesty or anything like amnesty.
In their stupidity, they voted for Dems thinking they were against amnesty to oppose the Republicans.
Try to pass Amnesty and the electorate may stage a revolt.
We’ll see whose finished.

Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 4:48 PM

Allah, perhaps you can now see why I was happy that we got through the weak bill to close part of our borders. You see, this is the flipside of the same coin.

Face it, it’s over. We’re ramming amnesty down your throat whether you like it or not, and we’re creating an entire new generation of Democratic voters that will smash Republican infrastructures throughout the Southwest and the rest of the nation.

You’ll never recover from this.

Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 2:54 PM

I’m afraid that you are right, but eventually many ‘republicans’ will see where the root of this problem is, and thus support Impeaching Bush. After that happens you will see the building of a newConservative Wave.

Gingrich for President!

DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 4:55 PM

Face it, it’s over. We’re ramming amnesty down your throat whether you like it or not, and we’re creating an entire new generation of Democratic voters that will smash Republican infrastructures throughout the Southwest and the rest of the nation.

You’ll never recover from this.

Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 2:54 PM

Yeah, kind of like when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 saying, “There goes the South for a generation.”

It was the only thing LBJ did right. If Bush succeeds in his insane amnesty plan to import a permanent underclass of workers for corporate profit on the backs of taxpayers, it will be the end of the GOP. All we need are 40 pairs of gonads in the Senate. I doubt they are there.

Valiant on November 13, 2006 at 5:09 PM

If a “comprehensive” bill is passed that is anything like the bill passed in the Senate earlier this year, the Republican Party is finished because the base will desert in droves. I foresee the rise of a third party addressing the concerns of the majority in the U.S. who believe U.S. as we know it will be destroyed if the “comprehnsive” bill becomes law. Bush’s approval rating would drop below 20% as most of the Republican base would rightly revile him as a traitor at the same time his new Democratic “friends” would try to impeach him.

I can only hope that the president pulls back from his determination to destroy the Republican Party, any semblence of border security, and the U.S. as we know it.

ptolemy on November 13, 2006 at 5:21 PM

They’re also all a bunch of zealots, doncha know, and we all know how much you hate those religious folk!

Sorry, Catholics aren’t zealots. Want proof? Here’s a list of the top ten states in this country by order of the percentage of their population that is Roman-Catholic. Notice how Kerry won most overwhelmingly, losing only New Mexico by 10,000 votes and Arizona being the only one he lost decisively (undoubtedly because a massive proportion of the Catholics in Arizona are illegal immigrants, and thus couldn’t vote):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_the_United_States#Roman_Catholicism_by_State

. All we need are 40 pairs of gonads in the Senate. I doubt they are there.

You only had 38 last time, and now you’re minus Allen, Santorum, Burns and Talent. All the Dems need is for about 10 Republicans to walk across the aisle. That won’t be hard to find.

Collins
Martinez
Olympia Snowe
Specter
Hagel
McCain
Sununu
Judd
Lindsay Graham
Coleman? (Don’t remember if he was one)

We’ll find ten to side with us. Can’t be that hard.

3.) They’re tired of illegals. Very tired. To the point where if they were to be deported en masse, no one would be very sad. The taxes we pay to support these people, as well as the headaches they cause are far above the convenience of them “doing the jobs Americans won’t do” (at that wage.)
At least 70-80% of the public doesn’t want amnesty or anything like amnesty.
In their stupidity, they voted for Dems thinking they were against amnesty to oppose the Republicans.
Try to pass Amnesty and the electorate may stage a revolt.
We’ll see whose finished.

Look, I provided facts and you didn’t. Every national opinion poll shows the American people are ok with the amnesty bill as long as you shut down the border. Hell, I’m ok with shutting down the border. Once the border is closed people won’t care what you do with the ones that are already here. No one wants to deport them all. The overwhelming majority support earned citizenship.

And if I’m wrong, why did J.D. Hayworth go down in Arizona? Why did Graff? The founder of the Minuteman? The voice of the angry conservative anti-illegal immigrant movement?

Why? They were both thrown out of office. Bush isn’t that unpopular in Arizona. He has an even 45% approval rating out there. That’s not that bad. You lost because the people finally realized it was time to compromise, and Hayworth and Graff were in the way.

Face it, you’ve lost the debate. The people have chosen a side. And it’s amnesty.

Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 5:31 PM

They were both thrown out of office.

Correction: Graff was not an incumbent.

Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 5:32 PM

You know, Grab-a-book notwithstanding, I don’t care what kind of bill we pass as long as we lock down the borders and find out exactly who’s here…I wanna know if AlQueda sleeper cell members are here and I’m sick of paying for these folks with my property taxes!
Amnesty wouldn’t solve a thing–the last thing we need is hordes of more illegals who “blend” into the background and mow our yards and clean our houses.
I’m no pollster, but I’m willling to bet that there were millions of Americans who pulled the D lever thinking they were voting for border controls and against Bush’s perceived “amnesty” program, although he swears it isn’t an amnesty program.
President Bush should have taken even more time to explain where he was going with this…but he didn’t.
And Congress (both houses, but especially the Senate) ruined it also.
The Senate bill was insane and was rightfully rejected by the House.
The House passed the Border Fence Bill as a sop to the electorate rather than legislating a Bill that had some real teeth in it because they were worried they wouldn’t be re-elected and here we are…

Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 5:45 PM

Face it, it’s over. We’re ramming amnesty down your throat whether you like it or not, and we’re creating an entire new generation of Democratic voters that will smash Republican infrastructures throughout the Southwest and the rest of the nation.

My aren’t we sure of ourselves? Do you have any actual proof for this belief, or do you just assume that all Hispanics are just going to fall in line after they hear your party’s siren call of ‘we’re going to take you for granted?’

Think again, buddy. We’re not the mind-numbed robots you obviously believe us to be.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 7:14 PM

Jen, you refuse to accept the facts. I would have thought that the title of this thread would have clued you in.

Audio: Kyl says Bush’s amnesty plan could be filibustered — by Republicans

The only ‘perception’ here is yours, and you perception is wrong. Again.

DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 7:16 PM

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 7:14 PM

As much as I wish that you were right, everything I’ve read on the topic of Bush’s Amnesty Bill points to Grebrook being right.

DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 7:19 PM

As much as I wish that you were right, everything I’ve read on the topic of Bush’s Amnesty Bill points to Grebrook being right.

I’m not talking about Bush’s amnesty bill. I’m talking about the ability of Hispanics to make up their own minds about politics. I think we need to be more enforcement-oriented in our approach to immigration, but think that simply throwing up our hands and saying Republicans will never appeal to Hispanic voters is unnecessarily defeatist.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 7:22 PM

I don’t think many people support open borders, but the number of immigrants needed to maintain economic growth is much greater than the number now allowed. Boost it up to at least 1 million per year, push harder for establishing a process for reviewing and monitoring those allowed and put in place policies for assimilating the immigrants.

Shutting down the border hurts America. Alienating Hispanics hurts republicans and conservatism. Current immigrant levels are below where they were when the Irish and Italians were coming in by the millions, and all these same arguments were made then, yet they made the country stronger not weaker. The same thing will happen with Hispanics. The only real decision is whether we want them to be victims owned by the dems or self reliant conservative Christians.

Finally, today from Michael Barone:

As I said on Fox News on election night: “Nativism and protectionism are political weapons that in a certain light look very strong, which seem to be gleaming swords that will slay all before them. But, again and again, they crack like glass in your hand.”

Proof comes from an exit poll: “Should most illegal immigrants working in the United States be (a) offered a chance to apply for legal status or (b) deported to the country they came from?” Legal status was favored by 57 percent, deportation by 38 percent. Those favoring legal status voted 61-37 percent Democratic; those favoring deportation voted 56-42 percent Republican. You might object to the wording of the question, but the results suggest to me that anything perceived as a harsh stance on immigration is not an electoral winner and that even those who agree with the harsh stance are not very likely to be propelled to vote Republican because of it. […]

Patrick H on November 13, 2006 at 7:28 PM

The number of immigrants needed to maintain economic growth is much greater than the number now allowed. Boost it up to at least 1 million per year, push harder for establishing a process for reviewing and monitoring those allowed and put in place policies for assimilating the immigrants.

Are you insane?
The illegals are having a literal turf war in my neighborhood competing to mow our lawns… and our property taxes to pay for their schools and emergency room visits goes up, up, and UP all the time…
Another million/year and the phone recordings won’t even bother to tell you to press “2″ for Spanish.

Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 7:32 PM

I’m not talking about Bush’s amnesty bill. I’m talking about the ability of Hispanics to make up their own minds about politics. I think we need to be more enforcement-oriented in our approach to immigration, but think that simply throwing up our hands and saying Republicans will never appeal to Hispanic voters is unnecessarily defeatist.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 7:22 PM

The topic is Illegal Aliens getting amnesty, and I will again sublit that most of those Illegals would never vote for Republicans. I base this on actual encounters that I’ve had with these Illegals as well as on reports out there for everyone to read.

There was a report out that told how most Mexican Americans did not approve of the Bush Illegal Amnesty Bill. How do you think they will vote after Bush goes against their wishes?

I cannot see a way where Republicans would gain when Bush gets his way, so let’s call it what it is. A Disaster!

DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 8:05 PM

Again, I think such a view doesn’t have much respect for the ability of people to think for themselves.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 8:10 PM

Sublog, how much respect do you have for the ability of people to think for themselves after the last election? Consider that before you answer.

DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 8:18 PM

Sublog, how much respect do you have for the ability of people to think for themselves after the last election? Consider that before you answer.

Losing an election does not make me reconsider my faith in the American people. I think we have a compelling message that, if communicated effectively, will attract voters.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 8:24 PM

My aren’t we sure of ourselves? Do you have any actual proof for this belief, or do you just assume that all Hispanics are just going to fall in line after they hear your party’s siren call of ‘we’re going to take you for granted?’

Election results:
Hispanics cast their ballots for:
Democrats: 72%
Republicans: 27%

And that says A LOT, because what you have to take into account here is that this includes people who identify themselves as “white hispanics” and Cuban-Americans, who are overwhelmingly Republican. So even including Cubans into the exit polls didn’t blunt the Democratic edge even marginally. Now, how many illegal immigrants do you honestly think are Cuban?

None. They’re overwhelmingly from Mexico, Central America and to a lesser extent, South America.

Colombians and Cubans are the only two Hispanic ethnic groups that seem to vote Repbulican. Thus, if Hispanics as a whole vote Democratic so overwhelmingly, and the illegal immigrants who will now be legalized do not even contain any Cubans, it’s actually logical to assume that even a GREATER percentage of them will vote for Democrats than the Hispanic-American population at large. They could go 85-15 for the Democrats for all you know.

Face it, you’re looking at a permanent political realignment unless you find 40 Republicans in the senate to filibuster. Which you won’t, because you could only find 38 before the elections. Now you’ll probably only be able to find 35 at best, maybe 37 if some people change their minds. But with Talent, Santorum, Allen and Burns all gone, it’s almost impossible to imagine that the pro-amnesty margin in the next immigration vote won’t increase by at least 2-3 votes.

It’s over. You should have purged your ranks of RINOs while you had the chance. Next time, don’t mock us for trying to off Lieberman. See how it comes back to bite you in the ass? The “RINOs”, as you call them, are going to do you in. Permanently.

Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 8:32 PM

Democrats: 72%
Republicans: 27%

Just so you know, that’s what I’ve read from WAPO and WSJ. I am, in fact, capable of math. 1% went for third parties.

Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 8:34 PM

The topic is Illegal Aliens getting amnesty, and I will again sublit that most of those Illegals would never vote for Republicans. I base this on actual encounters that I’ve had with these Illegals as well as on reports out there for everyone to read.

When we are easily and often rightly believed to be against their very existence, why would they? But there was a big drop in the percentage of Hispanics that voted republican in this election from the last, so I think it’s safe to say that even if they don’t, their children will if we don’t drive them into the other camp.

Patrick H on November 13, 2006 at 8:37 PM

Which election cycle was that from, Grebrook?

One, maybe two? Your dream of a permanent political realignment doesn’t take into account the strong social conservatism of many Hispanics.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 8:38 PM

“Shutting down the border hurts America. Alienating Hispanics hurts republicans and conservatism”

Why does shutting down the borders alienate Hispanics? Are Hispanic voters by in large in favor of law breakers? If so, why? Are Hispanic voters worthy of more consideration then American voters? You don’t seem too concerned about them. I don’t know about “republicans” but just how does it hurt conservatism? What defines America to you. Is the economy the ultimate definition of what America and Americans are? As long as the dollars flow. Our culture our way of life and American sovereignty don’t matter? If that is America to you and that is what you are suggesting by the way then you know nothing of conservatism and while you may be a good little republican you wouldn’t conservatism if it bit you in the ass!

Altura Ct. on November 13, 2006 at 8:39 PM

Your dream of a permanent political realignment doesn’t take into account the strong social conservatism of many Hispanics.

Yeah, you guys have been saying the same crap about blacks for 20 years. “Black people will vote Republican after a while because of abortion and gay marriage!”.

No, they wont, and neither will Hispanics. Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Vermont are essentially the top 3 Roman-Catholic states in the entire country. Aren’t exactly known as bastions of Republicanism, now are they?

Don’t dillude yourselves. Poor Hispanics will base their votes on fiscal issues. Not abortion.

Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 9:39 PM

This is the ONLY issue, my friends. If we can’t stop amnesty, the conservative movement is over.

Ali-Bubba on November 13, 2006 at 9:52 PM

Hispanics do tend to vote Conservative and they are very much Catholic and very much against abortion and for family values.
They don’t have to vote on fiscal issues, because they know the Republicans take care of the economy just fine, muchas gracias.
They will vote against amnesty for illegals, I know: I’ve talked to lots of Mexicans here in Texas and they are against letting illegals in even more than the rest of us on the Right.
I dare say that the Catholic Hispanic populations of RI, MA and VT still aren’t all that large–it takes them time to get that far up the East Coast.
If you are representative of the Dems and you don’t want to develop a platform for 2008 that more Americans will vote for, works for me!
Rant away on how the country just turned Left last week.

Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 9:54 PM

Is there ANYTHING we can do to stop this bill? I mean, we’re only American citizens. I’m beginning to think this country is so divided, it really should be DIVIDED to avoid a civil war.

stenwin77 on November 13, 2006 at 9:55 PM

Don’t dillude yourselves. Poor Hispanics will base their votes on fiscal issues. Not abortion.

Really? That’s interesting. I’ll have to tell my Republican relatives that one.

Their names are Garcia, Hernandez and Ortiz. I’m sure they’ll be very impressed by your argument, and less than impressed by your arrogant belief that you Democrats can control our votes.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 9:56 PM

Really? That’s interesting. I’ll have to tell my Republican relatives that one.

Their names are Garcia, Hernandez and Ortiz. I’m sure they’ll be very impressed by your argument, and less than impressed by your arrogant belief that you Democrats can control our votes.

Yeah, and a black guy earlier in the thread claimed that all of his relatives were voting for Republicans on social issues too. Last time I checked about 90% of blacks in this country voted Dem on Tuesday. So please do us all a favor and drop the B.S. personal stories about people YOU know and how they vote. My father is a Republican who voted Democratic this year and says he’s never going back. Do you see me bringing that up? No. Why? Because it’s irrelevant if 95% of Republicans still voted for their party.

I can back up my assertions about Hispanic voting patterns with facts. You can only back them up with personal anecdotes. Sorry, you’re making a losing argument.

And yes, about 75% of your collective Hispanic community in the U.S. voted for my party in this election. So get over it. You’re in the minority, and you don’t speak for them.

Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 10:18 PM

Hispanics do tend to vote Conservative and they are very much Catholic and very much against abortion and for family values

No they didn’t. They voted for Democrats by a 50% margin. Back up your assertions with fact and no more, “I personally have spoken with many Mexicans who…”. Yeah, we’ve ALL had personal encounters that work against the overall trend of certain ethnic groups. I’ve met some Jews in the past who voted for Republicans. But on Tuesday, only 13% of Jews actually voted for Republicans. So that’s irrelevant.

It’s become clear that no one on this blog can actually back up their argument with facts, just more personal observation.

You might as well be claiming, “Yeah, well, everyone I talked to said they voted Republican on Tuesday. The Republicans must have won.”

Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 10:21 PM

Grebrook, the only “fact” you’ve given us is exit poll data from an election you have thus far not identified. Everything else is supposition, based on your belief that you Democrats can control the votes of people like me and my family.

So get over it. You’re in the minority, and you don’t speak for them.

And you do?

Your arrogance is astounding.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 10:31 PM

44% of Hispanics who voted in 2004 voted for President Bush, an increase of 10 percent from 2000. Their vote was a decisive factor in a few states.

I believe Hispanics didn’t vote for Republicans this year for the same reasons as other voters – they were tired of the party in power seeming indifferent to the voters. Add in the harsh rhetoric from some anti-illegal immigration voters and you have the reason for the lower support.

The Hispanic vote is not something you can take for granted.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 10:56 PM

It’s become clear that no one on this blog can actually back up their argument with facts, just more personal observation.

Yes we know: you’re all about the “facts”. Why not take your seat, wipe the spittle from your monitor and I believe you’ll see many facts – albeit none you, alone, can agree with. Slublog just hit it with this:

44% of Hispanics who voted in 2004 voted for President Bush, an increase of 10 percent from 2000. Their vote was a decisive factor in a few states.

I believe Hispanics didn’t vote for Republicans this year for the same reasons as other voters – they were tired of the party in power seeming indifferent to the voters. Add in the harsh rhetoric from some anti-illegal immigration voters and you have the reason for the lower support.

As for exit polls, they are notoriously misleading.

thedecider on November 13, 2006 at 11:04 PM

Back up your assertions with fact and no more, “I personally have spoken with many Mexicans who

I live in Texas, buddy, where we’ve had many, many waves of illegals my whole life long whereas you, pal, obviously live in the East and are acquainted with Mexicans from “polls.”
So, I’m calling “back up” on you, not vice versa and don’t give me faceless polls!

Jen the Neocon on November 14, 2006 at 12:44 AM

So, I’m calling “back up” on you, not vice versa and don’t give me faceless polls!

Yeah, kind of like those polls that showed you heading for defeat last Tuesday that you ignored all year long, right? Yeah, man! Polls are all lies! Liberal lies! Republicans are actually going to INCREASE their majority this year!

Oh wa-

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 1:19 AM

Republicans are actually going to INCREASE their majority this year!

Oh wa-

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 1:19 AM

Put down the crack pipe Grebrook. Many Republican commentators (Bill Kristol included) predicted huge losses for the Republicans – in fact, far larger than was actually realized. In fact, the Dems did not win by as large a majority as many conservative commentators and analysts were predicting they would.

thedecider on November 14, 2006 at 1:31 AM

Put down the crack pipe Grebrook. Many conservative commentators (including Bill Kristol) were predicting much larger losses for Republicans than was actually realized. In fact, the Dems did not win by as large a majority as most of the commentators (I read anyway) were predicting.

thedecider on November 14, 2006 at 1:33 AM

Put down the crack pipe Grebrook. Many Republican commentators (Bill Kristol included) predicted huge losses for the Republicans – in fact, far larger than was actually realized. In fact, the Dems did not win by as large a majority as many conservative commentators and analysts were predicting they would.

Yes they did. Last time I checked, Republicans were claiming that if the Dems won, it would only be a marginal 4 or 5 seats. In fact, they won by a 14-15 seat margin that gives them the same majority the Republicans essentially had.

So no, you are, in fact, wrong. Very few conservative commentators predicted the Dems would win to begin with. most claimed that gerrymandering would save the GOP. It did save a good 12-25 seats.

There were no Republican commentators honestly predicting larger than 30 seat losses and you know it. Even Larry Sabato only predicted a 26-seat Democratic pick up.

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 2:11 AM

Eric12470210 wrote: “Not to ruin the mood here, but how can we favor a Republican filibuster but oppose the Deomocrats doing the same thing on the grounds that it isn’t fair.”

The issue of opposing the use of the filibuster was in carrying out the CONSTITIONAL DUTY of consenting to the appointment of judges. The opposition to the filibuster was narrowly focused on that topic and not with respect to the consideration of normal legislation.

The Constitution is quite clear at specifying when supermajorities are necessary for either House to approve a measure. Only a bare majority (51 Senators) is require to approve a judge, as the Constitution does not require otherwise.

The problem was that the Democrats used the filibuster to require a SUPERMAJORITY to end the debate before calling the vote on approving a judge. This effectively required that there be 60 YEA votes to confirm a judge.

The word “filibuster” is not in the Constitution. It was an invention imposed by a Senate rule (an agreement among the majority of Senators) that procedurally, debate could not be forced to end and a vote taken on an bill without a supermajority of 60 Senators.

This defeats the ability of the Senate, however, to fulfill it’s constitutional duty to consent with respect to the appointment of judges. What allowing filibusters for Senate confirmation votes effectively does is AMEND THE CONSTITUTION without following the proper form to amend, because the number of Senator needed to approve a judge suddenly becomes 60, not 51.

The move to filibuster judge confirmation votes was an obstructionist ploy by the Democrats to prevent the President from appointing judges that they didn’t approve of. It was a massive reversal of senate tradition and it destroyed what civility was left between Republicans and Demcorats.

georgej on November 14, 2006 at 2:42 AM

Grabrook, sure you’re not Dick Morris or James Carville?
Whatever you’re a policy wonk and a statistics freak, whereas I’m a “hearts and minds” kind of Conservative Republican.
Your ideas, such as they are, are typical of the Liberal Left.
You say the electorate likes them, I say they don’t and definitely like ours better.
I don’t care how many stats you put up or polls, I know my fellow Americans and they’re “liberal” and they don’t like Socialism.
Ignore this at your and your party’s peril–we may have lost seats in this election, but there’s a reason we won the last four elections and for 6 years had control of the White House, 4 years in the Senate and 12 years in the House.
We will win the people’s votes back, because Dem ideas are UNAMERICAN.

Jen the Neocon on November 14, 2006 at 2:47 AM

georgej, then there was McCain’s Gang of 14 which blocked any attempts to remove the cloture/fillibuster rule.
Thanks, John!

Jen the Neocon on November 14, 2006 at 2:49 AM

Allahpundit, it’s time to implement some kind of a “twit filter.”

I’m finding certain posters here to be obnoxious and insulting and I would rather not have to read their postings.

I am not asking you to ban anyone, I just would like to ahve the ability to not have to read the blatherings of certain individuals.

Please consider it.

Thanks

georgej on November 14, 2006 at 2:50 AM

Amen, george! Gee, I wonder who were talking about? Could it be DU’s missing seminar poster?

Jen the Neocon on November 14, 2006 at 2:53 AM

Jen wrote: “georgej, then there was McCain’s Gang of 14 which blocked any attempts to remove the cloture/fillibuster rule.”

Yes. These 14 Senators decided to keep the fillibuster on judges in place until this Congress ends in December. But, they also agreed that the agreement would disolve if the filibuster was improperly used to block an otherwise worthy judge.

What these 14 judges did was not unconstitutional, any more that arranging party line votes on bills are unconstitutional. But it kept the status quo with a threat that the 7 Repubilcans WOULD disolve the agreement and vote FOR removing the ability to filibuster judge confirmation votes if push came to shove.

georgej on November 14, 2006 at 2:56 AM

The Mexicans who come over the border illegally will NEVER EVER EVER vote Republican. They want all the freebies -which the Democrats are more than happy to promise them.

Unless you’re willing to pay for their education, free healthcare, etc… you’ll NEVER win them over.

So, comprehensive immigration is a new voting base for the Democrats, period!

stenwin77 on November 14, 2006 at 8:21 AM

The Mexicans who come over the border illegally will NEVER EVER EVER vote Republican. They want all the freebies -which the Democrats are more than happy to promise them.

Nonsense on stilts. Got any citation for this assertion?

Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 8:26 AM

As soon as I realized that a filibuster would be the only option/defense left for the “no amnesty” forces , I researched through Numbersusa the individual votes on 2611. Given the outcome of the election where four “Nay” Reps were replaced by four Dems (who did NOT campaign on the immigration issue) – it cannot be assumed that they will vote with the majority. (Salazar, cognizant of his exposure as a Hispanic American, abstained. Rockefeller abstained also with back surgery. Frist (a “YEA”) was replaced by a likely “Nay”. Do the math; and – of the 51 Dems – there could be 5,or so, Dems who could not be counted on to vote for cloture. This would require 14 +/- “cross-overs”.

Coleman, Collins, Hagel, (Sununu voted ‘NAY” on 2611), are up for re-election in ’08, and the voters will remember which Reps voted to quash a Rep-lead filibuster in both ’08 AND ’10. Salazar set the precedent. Watch the Rep abstentions denying the Dems the “magic 60″. “Political suicide” is the operative word. The Reps will “sink or swim” together. Individual heroism is not likely. “Stay-at-homes” and/or third party are on the minds of every Rep politician.

Jim Campbell on November 14, 2006 at 1:19 PM

Slublog – I quess you haven’t seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuHZcHkqbSI

Where I live we are spending $300 million dollars just to build new schools for the illegal aliens. They are destroying our country from within.

Wuptdo on November 14, 2006 at 1:21 PM

No, I had not seen that video, and it’s frankly two minutes of my life I’d like back.

I think it’s wrongheaded to assume that every person who crosses the border is just doing it for the ‘goodies,’ just as it’s foolish to assume there are ‘jobs Americans won’t do.’ One of the main reasons we can’t get anywhere with this debate is because neither side is willing to let go of certain wrong assumptions.

Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 1:48 PM

In my post dated 11/14 at 1:19, I left out 4 Dems who had voted “NAY” on 2611:Dorgan, Nelson (NE), Byrd, and Stabenow. If just 3 out of these abstain, then there’s likely 17 “cross-overs” needed. Seventeen out of the 23 Reps who voted “YEA” back in June. Likely?

Jim Campbell on November 14, 2006 at 3:44 PM

Collins, Susan M. (D-ME)
Craig, Larry E. (D-ID)
Domenici, Pete V. (D-NM)
Graham, Lindsey (D-SC)
Hagel, Chuck (D-NE)
Smith, Gordon H. (M-OR)
Stevens, Ted (?-AK)
Warner, John (D-VA)

Jaibones on January 20, 2007 at 11:56 PM

I think it’s wrongheaded to assume that every person who crosses the border is just doing it for the ‘goodies’…

Well, I guess that would depend on your definition of “goodies”, then, wouldn’t it? If a functioning economy is a goodie — and I think it is — then you’re wrong. High quality, free emergency health care (don’t tell the Democrats!), tons o’ jobs, social security, lowish taxes, Walmart. Yep, they’re coming for the goodies.

What the hell do you think they come here for?

If Mexicans are just trying to get away from corruption, then someone explain to me why they come to Chicago (we just elected the retarded son of the convalescing county board President as his replacement).

Jaibones on January 21, 2007 at 12:03 AM