Dems kill proposal to raise fines on employers who hire illegals

posted at 4:17 pm on January 26, 2007 by Allahpundit

Jeff Sessions, a member of the “party of big business,” wanted to jack up the minimum penalty by a factor of 20. That put our new majority in a bit of a pickle: are they the party of the working man or the party of “the undocumented”? Can’t really be both, as Kaus has pointed out repeatedly.

So they had to choose. And they chose.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, offered the amendment to the bill now being debated that would increase the federal minimum wage.

Ridding the economy of illegal aliens, he argued, would do far more to help low-income wage earners than simply raising the minimum wage. Not only do aliens displace U.S. citizens in the work force, he said, they also artificially suppress wages…

One of the reasons “that those salaries have lagged behind is because of a large influx of illegal immigrant labor,” he said. “That is indisputable, and it’s not been discussed much here. People apparently don’t want to talk about it, but we’re going to talk about it.”

But Democratic leaders refused to let Mr. Sessions’ alien amendment reach the Senate floor yesterday, and they accused him and other Republicans of offering amendments unrelated to the minimum-wage increase in order to stall passage of the bill…

He calls his amendment “comprehensive wage reform,” a sly reference to the “comprehensive” approach to immigration reform that Democrats and President Bush are demanding, but most Republicans deride as amnesty.

Mr. Sessions’ proposal came directly out of the employer-sanctions section of the immigration-reform bill approved with overwhelming Democratic support last year.

Who cares? You can raise the fines a hundredfold; if employers know the feds are looking the other way, most of them will take the risk. By all means, in this case, blame Bush.

Meanwhile, Opinion Journal makes a good point about the border-patrol case in the course of making a very, very stupid one about Bush’s immigration policy. The good point:

The Congressmen who are exploiting the episode haven’t made an issue of the agents’ guilt, which is by and large conceded. Rather, the restrictionists argue that Compean and Ramos should be given a pass because the victim of their crime was a drug-smuggling illegal alien.

This is an odd argument coming from immigration hard-liners, who typically say that while they love legal immigrants the U.S. must “enforce the law” on the border. That the agents have been held accountable for misconduct shows that no one is above the law. Letting the agents off the hook would also send a terrible message to honest border agents who perform a difficult and dangerous job.

Now click here and scroll down to the last paragraph for teh stupid.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“Rather, the restrictionists argue that Compean and Ramos should be given a pass because the victim of their crime was a drug-smuggling illegal alien.”

That is pretty good by the abysmal standards of the Journal. Many supporters of the agents certainly have made or at least implied that argument. However “the restritctionists” also include people who do not concede the agents’ guilt of every charge and who argue that the agents had reason to believe the smuggler was armed and therefore that they were firing in self defense.

Alex K on January 26, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Speaking as someone named Enrique, I’d just like to say that Hispanics suck.

REVERSE RACE CARD! Advantage mine!

Enrique on January 26, 2007 at 4:33 PM

You’re getting on my nerves, dude.

Allahpundit on January 26, 2007 at 4:33 PM

So much for the mantra about enforcing the borders by penalizing employers, not (illegal) workers. Obviously that was just a red herring.

aunursa on January 26, 2007 at 4:37 PM

And these are the same folks who assail Mr. Bush’s guest-worker proposal as “amnesty.” The irony is that if Mr. Bush’s plan were in place and there were more legal ways to enter the U.S., border agents would have more time and resources to chase down people like Aldrete-Davila and apprehend them properly.

wha?

lan astaslem on January 26, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Silver lining: If blanket amnesty succeeds, it may very well speed up the collapse of Social Security.

Glass half full, et al…

Hoodlumman on January 26, 2007 at 4:38 PM

I read the editorial on the Opinion Journal this morning and found it to be less-than-honest. Upon a second reading, I continue to find their take of the story quite one-sided.

While many people have made the argument that the agent’s guilt shouldn’t matter because they were firing on a drug-smuggling illegal; most (who argue for a pardon) have argued that the agents claim that they thought he had a weapon when they fired on him.

Furthermore, they say that the case would have gone unprosecuted if “an honest member of the border patrol” hadn’t heard about it and filed a report. Yet again, that presentation of the facts leaves out the details about the drug-smuggler’s mother calling her friend in the US who called her son/nephew (I’ve heard both and am not sure of which is accurate) in the border patrol. While that detail does not prove any wrong-doing, it is at least worth investigating the allegation that the ‘honest agent’ that filed the report has a connection to the smuggler.

There was also no mention of the allegation that the bullet was taken home by the DA after being removed from the smuggler’s rump. Why would a seasoned DA take evidence home? I’m not a DA (seasoned or otherwise) so I don’t know if this is common…..

Of course, there are those that say “Well, a jury was made aware of all these things and still found the men guilty.” That’s well and good, except, the editorial also doesn’t mention that 3 (that’s 3/12 or 25%) of the jurors now claim that they were pressured into voting guilty when they didn’t believe he was guilty. I suppose those 3 jurors are also crazy NAU-believing ‘restrictionists’ as well?

JadeNYU on January 26, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Meanwhile, Opinion Journal makes a good point about the border-patrol case in the course of making a very, very stupid one about Bush’s immigration policy. The good point:

And in doing so, they miss a couple of much bigger points about the case, notwithstanding the stupid one about Bush’s immigration policy.

1) What the agents did hardly justifies such a harsh sentence.

2) They are all gung-ho about enforcing the law against those that are tasked with enforcing our borders – but their enthusiasm for enforcing it against those who willfully violate it is virtually non-existent.

They were right that the case sent a terrible message to border control agents. They were just wrong about what that message is.

thirteen28 on January 26, 2007 at 4:40 PM

…if Mr. Bush’s plan were in place and there were more legal ways to enter the U.S., border agents would have more time and resources to chase down people like Aldrete-Davila and apprehend them properly.

There ya go. Eliminate the law and you don’t have to waste all that time enforcing it, and the crime stats will look sooo much better. Seems to me I’ve heard that argument before.

RedWinged Blackbird on January 26, 2007 at 4:43 PM

1) What the agents did hardly justifies such a harsh sentence.

It’s probably because for the most part, courts tend to hold law enforcement officers to a higher standard because we place such trust in them.

Slublog on January 26, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Compean and Ramos were guilty of believing in their training. Every stop, every situation, every man woman and child wants to harm you. Can’t blame them. Over and over and over. You must protect yourself at all costs.

11 years to ‘rethink’ their training. That’s justice.

Limerick on January 26, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Meanwhile, Opinion Journal makes a good point about the border-patrol case in the course of making a very, very stupid one about Bush’s immigration policy.

Allahpundit

The Congressmen who are exploiting the episode haven’t made an issue of the agents’ guilt, which is by and large conceded.

It may be a “good point” if the statement were true that the agent’s guilt is “by and large conceded.”

Most of the American public does not buy this and feels that the entire case was a sham.

If the argument that the agent’s guilt is “conceded” simply because a jury found them guilty … I guess we are all conceding that OJ is innocent then?

Gregor on January 26, 2007 at 4:45 PM

I wonder how the AFL/CIO feels about this? The Democrats really don’t have a solid position on anything.

It reminds me of the South Park “Underwear Gnome” episode, but in the Democrat’s case:

#1 Get Political Power
#2 ?
#3 Prosperity!

natesnake on January 26, 2007 at 4:47 PM

It’s probably because for the most part, courts tend to hold law enforcement officers to a higher standard because we place such trust in them.

Slublog on January 26, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Sorry, ain’t buying that, particularly when there is a dispute over whether they had reason to beleive whether the drugrunner was armed. Law enforcment officers can literally lose their lives if they guess wrong on that issue.

It’s one thing to hold them to a higher standard, but this is way out of proportion.

thirteen28 on January 26, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Speaking as someone named Enrique, I’d just like to say that Hispanics suck.

REVERSE RACE CARD! Advantage mine!

Enrique on January 26, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Did someone give him an “Absolute Moral Authority Card”?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 26, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Thjs line from the Journal is rich with irony:

That the agents have been held accountable for misconduct shows that no one is above the law.

Of course, if they had their way, millions of people who entered this country illegally would be just that – above the law.

thirteen28 on January 26, 2007 at 4:53 PM

That put our new majority in a bit of a pickle: are they the party of the working man or the party of “the undocumented”?

They are the party of “two Americas“, as Mr. Edwards says.

Entelechy on January 26, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Sorry, ain’t buying that, particularly when there is a dispute over whether they had reason to beleive whether the drugrunner was armed

That depends on whether the jury knew the suspect was a drugrunner. Lawyers correct me if I’m wrong, but prior convictions are inabmissable if the suspect does not take the stand. It would be considered irrelevant to the case according to law.

The jury may have been led to believe that he was just some poor refugee from Mexico looking for a better living when he was shot for now good reason.

natesnake on January 26, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Who cares? You can raise the fines a hundredfold; if employers know the feds are looking the other way, most of them will take the risk.

Utter rot.

Business will assess the risk verse reward and act accordingly. Anyone that thinks businessfolk will ignore this sort of risk simply has no business experience.

Dwilkers on January 26, 2007 at 4:57 PM

To Clarify —

I do not have enough evidence to choose the prosecution’s or the defense’s side in this matter.

I have read enough about the case for it to raise some questions in my mind. Questions which the prosecutor’s “fact sheet” did not address.

I believe the harsh sentence is due to Federally mandated minimums for the crimes that they were found guilty of. I think the minimum was 10 years. This is definitely an argument against mandated minimum sentences. On the other hand, when judges give child molesters no jail time because the creep is short, I find myself wanting more mandated minimums. Perhaps what I really want is a competent judiciary.

————————————

On the matter that this thread was mainly supposed to be about, I have to wonder how the unions feel about the Democrats support of illegal immigrants.

On the one hand, illegals are driving down wages and making it harder to bargain for higher wages.

On the other hand, unions see illegals as ‘future union members’ and don’t want to offend them before they start collecting those dues.

JadeNYU on January 26, 2007 at 4:58 PM

I hear Tancredo tots…calling me…calling me…

I’m with La Shawn Barber. More people need to take this Presidential candidate seriously. ‘Nuff said.

CyberCipher on January 26, 2007 at 5:01 PM


I have read enough about the case for it to raise some questions in my mind. Questions which the prosecutor’s “fact sheet” did not address.

JadeNYU on January 26, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Jade, here’s a link to a .pdf that addresses Sutton’s fact sheet from the side of the defense.

Granted, this sheet is an advocacy for the defense’s side, but then again, Sutton’s was advocacy for the prosecution’s side. At minimum, it should be given equal weight to anything said by Sutton.

thirteen28 on January 26, 2007 at 5:06 PM

The Congressmen who are exploiting the episode haven’t made an issue of the agents’ guilt, which is by and large conceded.

Can anyone walk us through this proof of guilt? If not, shut up. They are guilty of interfering with a smuggling operation. All the border agents should aspire to be guilty of that.

Not only do aliens displace U.S. citizens in the work force, he said, they also artificially suppress wages…

Sessions is absolutely right about the workers having their labor value diluted by the illegals and most workers realize this and the others could be made to realize this if it’s explained to them. They should offer this amendment to every bill that comes up in the House and Senate.

Allowing non-skilled workers into the country legally through immigration or guest worker programs also dilutes the value of the working person’s labor and if we are concerned about the lagging wages of the working poor and the “widening gap between rich and poor”, like Democrats once claimed as a concern of theirs, we will prevent this dilution.

Perchant on January 26, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Who cares? You can raise the fines a hundredfold; if

employers know the feds are looking the other way, most of them will take the risk.

Utter rot.

Business will assess the risk verse reward and act accordingly. Anyone that thinks businessfolk will ignore this sort of risk simply has no business experience.

Dwilkers on January 26, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Actually, any business owner paying attention would correctly notice that – even after successful immigration raids – the current administration has failed to hold those businesses accountable. The raid is completed, the illegals are removed, and then the entire case goes completely away, never to be heard from again. Meanwhile, a few hours later the apprehended illegals are given free legal assistance at our expense, and then released back into the community, never to be seen again.

There are already laws in place. There are already fines in place. Until the existing fines begin to be administered against offenders … business owners will continue business as usual negocio como de costumbre.

Gregor on January 26, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Now that the election is over…business as usual – the Democrats kill pork-buster.

Entelechy on January 26, 2007 at 5:22 PM

Dems kill proposal to raise fines on employers who hire illegals

In other words ……

Dems kill proposal to raise fines on Nancy Pelosi’s non-union employers who hire illegals to pick grapes in her California vineyards

No surprise here. Move along.

fogw on January 26, 2007 at 5:26 PM

Sorry to be all doom and gloom but with a Democrat controlled Congress and a amnesty supporting President, we all might as well start learning Spanish.

Our gov’t seems hell bent to accept all the problems of our neighbor to the south which is essentially a 3rd world nation.

Yakko77 on January 26, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Dems kill proposal to raise fines on Nancy Pelosi’s non-union employers who hire illegals to pick grapes in her California vineyards

It’s important for conservatives to realize that the Dems are not exclusively responsible for this. These same types of amendments failed while we still held the majority.

This fungus is spread throughout both parties.

Gregor on January 26, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Jeff Sessions- Doing the job that American Senators aren’t doing.

Valiant on January 26, 2007 at 5:39 PM

I’m really pessimistic about any immigration reform. Nothing is going to get done in D.C. This is why big government is bad. The states are going to have to step it up, as some already have. I don’t know how far states can go, or are willing to go, but I really think that’s the best hope for change.

Unfortunately, I live in MA, where our new gov just reversed a ruling allowing state cops to arrest illegals, instead he think the issue should be handled by corrections officers in prisons. Great, so every few months they’ll trumpet some arrests of illegals who are already in jail, much like the recent highly publicized arrests of .00038% of illegals in this country.

They are trying to count illegals in the census so we don’t lose a seat in the House! It’s out of control. Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, my company is shutting down and moving to Juarez, Mexico.

So please, some state needs to step it, start denying benefits, medical care, hell, pull them over and drive them to the state line, drive them up to MA and drop them off, so all the progressives up here can deal with the problems they created.

Do it soon, so I can move there.

reaganaut on January 26, 2007 at 5:40 PM

Samoa is exempt from any files, just ask Polutsi.

Wade on January 26, 2007 at 5:41 PM

This fungus is spread throughout both parties.

And the real problem is that the parties have entirely different rationales for looking the other way on this issue. Democrats: social/political
Republicans: economic

Slublog on January 26, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Republicans: economic

Economic as defined by what’s good for their donor’s wallets. Not what’s good for the country’s economy.

Economically, illegal immigration is destroying this country.

Gregor on January 26, 2007 at 5:48 PM

In one way. In another, there’s no question that illegal, cheap, labor is good for prices/profits.

Now, I’m not talking about a moral good but an economic one.

Slublog on January 26, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Remember, economics is the dismal science.

Slublog on January 26, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Definitely good for prices and profits of the companies who hire them. But disaster for American wages, cost of medical care, insurance rates, cost of law enforcement, and social services.

What saves us 75 cents at the checkout stand … costs us each thousands a year in taxes.

Gregor on January 26, 2007 at 5:53 PM

There’s a lot to like about Jeff Sessions. Too bad he’s not running in ’08.

bdfaith on January 26, 2007 at 5:53 PM

This is all “business as usual” in Congress. Both the libs and the conservatives use the illegal alien issue to pander to their constituency. The people who pay the price are currnet american citizens regardless of color or national origin.

The only problem I have with these two agents is that they are stupid. Just that alone, makes them deserving of the prison time.

If you’re gonna cover up a shooting, cover it up for crying out loud! If not, then just come clean. Either way, they’d be looking at no time or a slap on the wrist.

I’d like to see Bush pardon them, but I’m not holding my breath.

csdeven on January 26, 2007 at 5:54 PM

What saves us 75 cents at the checkout stand … costs us each thousands a year in taxes.

But isn’t it worth it for cheap produce?

C’mon…there’s nothing like a nice juicy clementine.

Slublog on January 26, 2007 at 5:54 PM

And the real problem is that the parties have entirely different rationales for looking the other way on this issue. Democrats: social/political
Republicans: economic

Well, there may be some hope there, as a decent guest-worker program–genuinely enforeced, to a sector of the economy that needs it, etc–might be a way to buy off the business lobby. Maybe that’s a delusion, I don’t know.

Anyway, some Republicans do genuinely seem to be going at it from a political stance as well, having apparently convinced themselves that they can somehow bag hispanics as a permanent voting bloc the same way Dems have bagged blacks. Or convinced themselves that they will lose the hispanic bloc for all time if they don’t pander to the immigration activists, whom they can’t seem to distinguish from hispanics in general–as if legal hispanic citizens are as pro-illegal-immigration as immigration activists!

Alex K on January 26, 2007 at 5:54 PM

2) They are all gung-ho about enforcing the law against those that are tasked with enforcing our borders – but their enthusiasm for enforcing it against those who willfully violate it is virtually non-existent.

thirteen28 on January 26, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Excellent observation. Talk about your “irony lost”, the Wall Street Journal finally found some “law breakers” in the vicinity of the US-Mexico border who they were pleased to see prosecuted.

Perchant on January 26, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Big Surprise, the national interest, and the interest of the majority of Americans, being sacrificed for partisan gain. The Democrats gain political advantage and the Republicans cater to corporate and wealthy individual greed. We, the American Public, are the loosers.

The kicker, and there doesn’t seem much we can do about it.

omegaram on January 26, 2007 at 5:59 PM

But isn’t it worth it for cheap produce?

Slublog on January 26, 2007 at 5:54 PM

No. I’d rather pay $5 for an apple.

Gregor on January 26, 2007 at 6:02 PM

I was joking.

Plus, why eat fruit when we’ve invented deep frying?

Slublog on January 26, 2007 at 6:10 PM

If the big producers had to pay legal citizens a living wage to pick fruit, the mom and pop producers would have a chance at competing. Then the price of produce would find it’s lowest level through the free market process. I see that as a win-win for the american consumer.

csdeven on January 26, 2007 at 6:21 PM

they accused him and other Republicans of offering amendments unrelated to the minimum-wage increase in order to stall passage of the bill…

They can’t get away with saying that because it is directly related. Raising the minimum wage is an incentive for employers to hire more illegal off-the-books labor so Sessions’ amendment is needed to ensure that the minimum wage law won’t be evaded.

Bush would just need to send the bill back to the Senate insisting on this amendment and the Democrats would be in deep trouble.

Perchant on January 26, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Bush would just need to send the bill back to the Senate insisting on this amendment and the Democrats would be in deep trouble.

Perchant on January 26, 2007 at 6:32 PM

ROFL!!! Bush would NEVER allow this ammendment to pass, and it’s not only the Democrats who are in trouble. It’s a good chunk of the GOP also.

Gregor on January 26, 2007 at 6:35 PM

I was joking.

Plus, why eat fruit when we’ve invented deep frying?

Cracked me up :)

wytammic on January 26, 2007 at 6:39 PM

They were right that the case sent a terrible message to border control agents. They were just wrong about what that message is.

Excellent point

wytammic on January 26, 2007 at 6:40 PM

ROFL!!! Bush would NEVER allow this ammendment to pass, and it’s not only the Democrats who are in trouble. It’s a good chunk of the GOP also.

Gregor on January 26, 2007 at 6:35 PM

But it’s the Republicans who are already seen as the party of big business opposed to the plight of the working man. They can only improve their standing in the eyes of the working class. The Democrats, on the other hand, would be seen for who they truly are.

Since Bush would have no intention of actually enforcing the Sessions amendment anyway, it can’t hurt for him to insist on its inclusion in the bill.

Perchant on January 26, 2007 at 6:46 PM

If the big producers had to pay legal citizens a living wage to pick fruit, the mom and pop producers would have a chance at competing. Then the price of produce would find it’s lowest level through the free market process. I see that as a win-win for the american consumer.

csdeven on January 26, 2007 at 6:21 PM

And if the big producers were afraid of fines or had to pay a living wage, they would invest more time and money in the technological aspects of harvesting, pruning, packing, etc. That would increase the number of science/engineering jobs as well as highly skilled workers and would benefit the country in multiple ways.

NTWR on January 26, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Democrats Demand Bush Deliver Republican Votes on Immigration

James Rowley
Thu Jan 25, 12:07 AM ET

“Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) — Democrats are demanding President George W. Bush deliver significant support — likely more than a quarter of all House Republicans — to ensure passage of a bipartisan overhaul of U.S. immigration law.

Democrats say they won’t shoulder the responsibility alone for any comprehensive and politically sensitive plan that includes Bush’s proposals to give 12 million illegal aliens a chance at citizenship and to create a guest-worker program. The president made his latest pitch for the plan in his State of the Union address this week.

Substantial Republican support is “a prerequisite,” said Democratic Representative Howard Berman (news, bio, voting record) of California. Key Democrats and congressional aides from both parties suggest 50 to 60 of the House’s 202 Republicans is the minimum backing to guarantee passage. “I would hope the number would be closer to 100,” said Illinois Democrat Luis Gutierrez (news, bio, voting record), a sponsor of immigration reform.

Last year, the Republican-controlled House thwarted Bush’s drive to revamp immigration as members of his own party decried what they said was an amnesty program for illegal aliens. Instead, they approved a 700-mile fence last year to tighten the U.S.-Mexico border.

The president and the new Democratic-controlled Congress now find themselves uneasy allies on the issue.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070125/pl_bloomberg/a1wrgpenv3a_1

We could look at this three ways. A. the Democrats are trying to muscle the Pres. B. they’re not so confident that they can pass a faux amnesty after all. or C. the libertraitors are too chicken to take responsibility for they’re nations betrayal, perhaps the nations last betrayal.

P.S. I got a fortune cookie today it read; Others appreciate your expressive qualities.
Seemed appropriate

Speakup on January 26, 2007 at 7:34 PM

Darn those Democrats! There they go again catering to Big Business to allow them to continue to exploit the workers.

hadsil on January 26, 2007 at 8:41 PM

…and so it begins.

It makes no difference if it’s wrong, as long as it is the opposite of what their Republican counterparts want. There is absolutely no reason for anyone in the world to not come into this country illegally, or not do the human smuggling. They won’t be prosecuted for it, 10,000,000+ illegal immigrants will soon have amnesty and can begin collecting OUR Social Security so they better hurry and start flooding in and get some while the gettin’s good, and even if they’re caught it’s just a hop-skip-and-a-jump back to where they were while facing no reprecussions for returning illegally.

Two Police Officers with wives and children have been murdered in San Diego by illegal Mexican immigrants over the last couple of years alone. They both were here illegally (as are STILL their whole families), had arrest records for various crimes -were deported and returned more than once-, and still face no sentencing enhancements or prosecution for ANYTHING other than their local state level crimes.

A repeat offender illegal immigrant, from Mexico, with numerous DUI arrests while in the US illegally over many years crashed head-on into a young woman on a road in San Diego and killed her… while he was driving drunk yet AGAIN. He has been availed all sorts of continuances, fired and hired and fired different attorneys, finally took a plea deal and pled guilty… then fired his attorney again and has had two sentencing hearings continued PLUS he now wants to withdraw his guilty plea. The family of the murdered young woman suffer HORRIBLY as they are dragged along by their ankles through this repeat offender illegal immigrant’s nefarious use of the justice system, which accomodates him and his shenanigans without hesitation.

Those are just three off the top of my head that I care to take the time to roughly post about.

This country’s going to go down, and go down hard very soon once the next POTUS election is done. And is that based on because it’s the right thing to do? No. It’s all about revenge, it’s all about marxist hippie’s running this country, and it’s all about finally sealing the fate of a democratic country once Socialism finally prevails as the lefty liberals finally outnumber those with common sense and an ability to see the big picture.

Australia is looking beter & better all the time… as long as they get that Muslim problem in check.

SilverStar830 on January 26, 2007 at 10:57 PM

aaaaand this comes as a big surprise?

Alden Pyle on January 27, 2007 at 12:18 PM

and it’s all about finally sealing the fate of a democratic country once Socialism finally prevails as the lefty liberals finally outnumber those with common sense and an ability to see the big picture.

Australia is looking beter & better all the time… as long as they get that Muslim problem in check.

SilverStar830 on January 26, 2007 at 10:57 PM

I don’t agree. Almost everyone who didn’t claim to be liberal was posed to proclaim the death of liberal ideology if the 06 elections had gone a different way. Besides meeting a historical trend at the six year point, the elections reminded everyone that extreme positions turn off the middle — the republican majority was not interested in acting like legislators and it bit them hard. They tried too hard to appeal to the base only — what the democrats had been doing to themselves for the last 12 years.

Remember the 04 election and the Red/Blue maps that showed most counties trended Republican? Do you really think that has flipped in two years time?

The Republicans have two challenges in my opinion (1) Learning to use the media more successfully (let’s be honest – Bush’s team is LOUSY in its PR performance) (2)More importantly, to get the republicans that didn’t go to the polls in 06 to continue to support, the base has to be more inclusive within the party, which means compromise on some issues. There is a big difference between compromise and surrender.

“No plan is perfect but a well thought out policy borne of some compromise can be perfected”

Personally I’m a little disappointed to see so many people who seem to relish the opinion that the end is here.

Bradky on January 27, 2007 at 12:38 PM

This is just to protect the first woman speaker from financial ruin for all the illegals-in-the-vineyards she employs.

Iblis on January 27, 2007 at 2:12 PM

There are a lot of Conservatives out there.
About a third of them are registered Democrats and about half of those watch Bill O’Reily.

Get Republican candidates back over to center right and follow through with some America first and 08 can be a landslide.

Identify with center right Conservative issues which is where Americans are in spite of the MSM bombardment and the blue dog, Reagan D registered voters will come.

The current RNC is not headed that way, get a clue.

Speakup on January 27, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Jeff Sessions is a National Treasure!

Mellen on January 27, 2007 at 8:27 PM