WaPo: You know, the official GOP response was, er … good

posted at 8:01 am on January 29, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

I’m not as surprised as the Washington Posts’ Robert Costa, but perhaps that’s due to a lowered set of expectations in the media for opposition responses to the State of the Union speech. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers has been one of the GOP’s hidden gems for too long as it is, and their decision to put her out front this year represents an acknowledgment from the Republican Party that they have to do two things in 2014 in order to compete. First, Republican women have to have a much stronger voice, and the GOP has to improve its communications.

So far, at least, mission accomplished (from CBS News):

It was all there — easygoing populism, an emphasis on jobs and her family, which includes a son with Down syndrome and a Navy veteran husband. It was as if a Republican pollster had somehow created a politician with the exact profile that Republicans are looking to promote as they head toward this year’s midterm elections. Here was a pro-life, never offensive Republican woman from a Western state who grew up picking apples on a farm; a youthful, 44-year-old Republican who is known as one of the most savvy social-media users in the House, uploading countless photos to Instagram and videos to Vine.

Even better, there was no unfortunate reach for a water bottle, as painfully endured by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio last year in his response, or the kind of awkward articulation that caused long-lasting headaches for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in 2009, when he delivered the Republican response to an Obama economic speech. Instead, it was a relatively smooth delivery, with the congresswoman whisking through her scripted remarks on a gold couch, a triangularly-folded American flag on a shelf behind her.

No drama, no problems. You could almost hear the collective whew breathed by Republicans as they strolled through Statuary Hall, many of them watching her on their iPhones or nearby televisions. After a tumultuous year, full of shutdowns and drama, McMorris Rodgers’s almost calculated boringness and upbeat, check-the-box appeal was cheered by Republicans.

“Boringness”? This is a misreading of McMorris Rodgers and her appeal. She’s no TV-version Donna Reed or a woman to disappear into the scenery. Three years ago, I sat down with her and Paul Ryan at a briefing on the budget shortly after Republicans took control of the House, and I can attest that she’s hardly “boring.” She is a dynamic presence, and a tough talker on Republican priorities who has worked her way into leadership for a reason.

We can see it in the response, which was good on substance as well as delivery. She has an Everywoman quality, and doesn’t hesitate to deploy it. She started off the speech noting that her first job was at McDonalds, and connects to voters outside the Beltway and the thought leaders. Unlike some politicians even at this level, McMorris Rodgers knows how to express herself dynamically rather than read off of cue cards, and how to channel joy, intellect, principle, and common sense in tandem.

What about the substance of the response? For the most part, it’s a recitation of GOP principles, as one would expect, except when McMorris Rodgers talks about her family — and especially her 6-year-old son, who has Down’s Syndrome. Cole has “only made me more determined to see the potential in every human life,” McMorris Rodgers told the nation passionately. “We are not defined by our limits, but by our potential.”  Shortly after that, McMorris Rodgers said that the issue facing America was not “income inequality … but opportunity inequality,” which she pledged the GOP to fight.  “That gap has become far too wide,” she argued, because of the same policies Obama proposed yet again in the State of the Union speech.

It’s not just the Post or Robert Costa who noticed, either. National Journal’s Matt Vasilogambros also came away impressed, not just with the messenger but the message:

So, it looks like Rodgers is picking up right where he left off. Her tone even sounded similar to that former President George W. Bush, who used the term frequently. The concept of compassionate conservatism posits that the free market can be used to help the poor and improve other social problems, like health care and immigration. But the term has been used to describe Republicans who might be faking empathy, garnering a negative connotation.

Rodgers took a shot of Obama, saying that his promises sound good, but it doesn’t necessarily help the poor.

“The president talks a lot about income inequality,” Rodgers said. “But the real gap we face today is one of opportunity inequality.”

And though the policies might not be any different than what Republicans have promoted in the past, McMorris Rodgers’ speech might set a tone shift to help improve public perception of a party once led by a millionaire presidential candidate who infamously belittled the “47 percent” looking for government handouts.

The question is how many people paid attention to the response. A slew of responses, planned or spontaneous, from Republicans may have distracted from McMorris Rodgers a bit last night. I suspect, though, that this one will resonate longer and farther in part because of the Congresswoman’s clear appeal to voters on the ground. We’ll see.

 


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

“Boringness”? This is a misreading of McMorris Rodgers and her appeal. She’s no TV-version Donna Reed or a woman to disappear into the scenery. Three years ago, I sat down with her and Paul Ryan at a briefing on the budget shortly after Republicans took control of the House, and I can attest that she’s hardly “boring.” She is a dynamic presence, and a tough talker on Republican priorities who has worked her way into leadership for a reason.

-Ed Morrissey

McMorris Rodgers is also for illegal alien amnesty, despite claiming to be against while campaigning:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-immigration-97878.html?hp=r18

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 11:47 AM

She’s already stated the need for “immigration reform” which we all know will be some form of amnesty. And that’s a litmus test for me.

Bitter Clinger on January 29, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Well than, your litmus test will select someone who can’t be elected.

Even Reagan recognized the problem…it can’t be solved with a wave of a magic wand, or with slogan’s.

If you actually sat down, and logically thought it through, you won’t be able to magically make 15 or 25 million people disappear. If you did, I would bet you would rather have 15 or 25 million welfare suckers from the inner cities shipped out.

Just one fact…if you have a child in America, that child is an American citizen…what do you do with the parents? Separate them? What about the little phrase:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You think that separating a child from their parents is the pursuit of happiness for the child? You think the Supreme Court is going to rule that not all citizens are created equal?

Really, you think you can change the Constitution because you don’t like kids born here of foreign parents?

That is just one minor (or major) legal hurdle, and you don’t think those thousands of cases won’t tie up our legal system?

Of course there has to be a better way…first is what she said, secure the border, and she has been unwavering on that.

Now do what Reagan attempted, but was fooled by the dems, create a logical step where good, qualified, hard working, honest men and women can enter, and the ones that have proven themselves can stay with some “hoops” they have to jump through.

Now take those hard working immigrants, and compare them to the welfare generation in the inner city…who do you want as a “citizen”?

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 11:48 AM

She was giving us e-harmony commercial realness. A great appeal to white voters over 50 I suppose, but nothing for younger folks.

libfreeordie on January 29, 2014 at 8:06 AM

You’re giving us a Leftists Love the World, all
Whites are RACISTS commercial on this website every day….

..but nothing that appeals to anybody who resides in the
Real World….

ToddPA on January 29, 2014 at 11:49 AM

So, in other words, you can’t really attack the substance of what she said so you’re engaging in class warfare based on race and age.

Happy Nomad on January 29, 2014 at 8:15 AM

She didn’t really say much. Other than she’s from the government and she’s here to help.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 11:49 AM

“We must pass immigration reform,” McMorris Rodgers, the fourth-ranking House Republican, said. “It’s a priority for Republicans, for Democrats. There’s a recognition that it’s important to America. It’s important to our economy. America has long been the land of immigrants.”

McMorris Rodgers is also for illegal alien amnesty, despite claiming to be against while campaigning:

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Funny, I read it and never saw the words that she was for “illegal alien amnesty”…buzz words to rile the troops?

Try to find someone that could be elected to a national office that believes we should ship back all of the “illegal aliens”, bus them back home without due process.

Wait, due process? Why what would due process cost regarding 15 million people? How much of a government bureaucracy would have to be built for such a task?

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Here’s another good one to chew on;:

Breitbart aug, 2013

On Wednesday, House Republicans each received a pamphlet described as an “Immigration Resource Kit” for members as they head home to face constituents on the issue of immigration reform throughout the August recess.

The last page of the pamphlet, which was distributed via the Wednesday morning GOP conference meeting, included a collage of what it described as “What Conservative Groups Are Saying.” Under that header, the pamphlet includes statements from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) president Grover Norquist, Southern Baptist Convention ethics and religious liberty commission president Dr. Russell Moore, the American Conservative Union (ACU), and the American Action Forum (AAF).

Each of these groups supports amnesty, and each has endorsed the Senate immigration bill.

When asked about whether she specifically approved the distribution of this material to all GOP members via conference on Wednesday, GOP conference chairwoman Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers told Breitbart News’ Kerry Picket that she had approved it because she thought it was being done on behalf of the Judiciary Committee. “Well we did distribute it at conference,” McMorris Rodgers said in an interview with Picket on Capitol Hill. “But it’s a product of the Judiciary Committee. We allowed for it to be handed out at conference.”

The full packet opens with a “Dear Colleague” letter from House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA). “This recess packet has been put together to help you communicate to your constituents the importance of immigration reform and the House Republican plan to produce solutions that actually fix the problems that plague our immigration system,”

Trojan Horses, keep em coming

entagor on January 29, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Now take those hard working immigrants, and compare them to the welfare generation in the inner city…who do you want as a “citizen”?
right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Pres. Reagan said one of his greatest regrets was the mass of illegal alien amnesty in the 1980s. So don’t you be referencing Reagan to support your desire to push illegal alien amnesty. Also, Republicans received a lower percentage of the Latino vote after that amnesty than they received before it.

Right2bright, you apparently have a history on this site of putting down innercity blacks and heralding illegal aliens, suggesting that the illegal aliens are all “hard working” and that we should feel lucky that the tens of millions of them broke our immigration laws and planted themselves in our country, taking advantage of social services, filling our prisons, etc.

The truth is that decades of mass, unchecked illegal immigration has ruined California, and we can expect the same to happen elsewhere, should another massive illegal alien amnesty be passed.

There has been a huge transfer of Mexico’s poor and unskilled population into our country. This is good for Mexico, but that for us. We should be welcoming the world’s best and brightest, and we should be enforcing our own immigration laws and standards.

Illegal alien amnesty would be suicide not only for conservatives and the Republican Party, but also for the nation as a whole. Some people are willing to throw away the country in order to give big business more cheap labor and the Democrat party more voters. Passing mass illegal alien amnesty would eventually ensure that we could never again elect a conservative president.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:00 PM

She was a disaster, in style and lack of substance, appearance included, and she’s an amnesty shill.

Lee would have sufficed…er, HA won’t feature him, nor did Faux.

To Hades with all the RINOs/traitors of the land, the ones who always enable the leftist thugs.

Schadenfreude on January 29, 2014 at 12:02 PM

She started off slowly, but finished strong. Like others have said, I think it was probably one of the better responses in recent memory.

GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Funny, I read it and never saw the words that she was for “illegal alien amnesty”…buzz words to rile the troops?

Try to find someone that could be elected to a national office that believes we should ship back all of the “illegal aliens”, bus them back home without due process.

Wait, due process? Why what would due process cost regarding 15 million people? How much of a government bureaucracy would have to be built for such a task?

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 11:53 AM

She used the amnesty code words. But, whatever. What I find most amusing is your use of hyperbole/strawmen right after your indignation about bluegill doing the same! Classic.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:07 PM

She started off slowly, but finished strong. Like others have said, I think it was probably one of the better responses in recent memory.

GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 12:05 PM

When did it get better? I was about 10 minutes in and had to turn it off for fear that I was going to go Van Gogh.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:10 PM

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Also, why do you have “illegal aliens” in quotes. That is a legal definition. Why didn’t you put “due process” in quotes as well?

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:14 PM

When did it get better? I was about 10 minutes in and had to turn it off for fear that I was going to go Van Gogh.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:10 PM

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I thought about four minutes in, she started to hit her stride. Delivering the SOTU response is a thankless job, but she did as good a job as one could have done with such a task. Then again, that’s just my opinion.

GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Lee would have sufficed…er, HA won’t feature him, nor did Faux.
To Hades with all the RINOs/traitors of the land, the ones who always enable the leftist thugs.
Schadenfreude on January 29, 2014 at 12:02 PM

I would have liked to have seen this site cover Lee’s response.

Ed, if you’re reading these comments, please note that readers would appreciate such coverage.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Ed, if you’re reading these comments, please note that readers would appreciate such coverage.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:16 PM

He doesn’t care. He is a statist GOP shill. I really don’t even know why I read the garbage at HA anymore.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:20 PM

When did it get better? I was about 10 minutes in and had to turn it off for fear that I was going to go Van Gogh.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Why were you not asleep by then?

Schadenfreude on January 29, 2014 at 12:20 PM

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Also, why do you have “illegal aliens” in quotes. That is a legal definition. Why didn’t you put “due process” in quotes as well?
besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Not2bright sees illegal aliens as merely undocumented Americans.

Rumor has it, that, to show his solidarity with the “undocumented,” he can be heard joining in with the illegal alien activist chants of, “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us!”

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Also, why do you have “illegal aliens” in quotes. That is a legal definition. Why didn’t you put “due process” in quotes as well?

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Because some one born in the states is is not illegal, so the blanket statement of “illegal aliens” is wrong…and due process is a legal term, yes, an actual legal term.

But go ahead and re-post and add and subtract whatever quotes you want if it makes you feel better. Or if you were so confused you didn’t understand.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Here is the pearl in the oyster, National Journal Jan 2014:

John Boehner is planning to unveil a set of Republican principles for immigration reform before President Obama’s State of the Union address, aiming to show the GOP is not hostile to legislation that might win them Hispanic voters.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and immigration-law expert Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, are writing the principles with Boehner.
….
Then, according to aides, the plan is to gauge public reaction. If House members are deluged with nothing but hate mail from their districts, Republicans might decide to do nothing but emphasize border security, perhaps even voting on the border bill produced last year. That’s at least until 2014 primary-election filings are over. (The biggest threat to Republicans on immigration is in the primaries anyway, strategists say. No one will lose in the general election because they are too soft on immigration.)

But if leadership’s principles receive some positive feedback, Goodlatte, Cantor, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., could advance legislation they have discussed for the last several months. As yet, there is no legislative language drafted, however. Cantor and Goodlatte have talked about a path to citizenship for undocumented “dreamers” who came to this country as kids.

You think they do not have a plan, and she was just picked because
might appeal to women?

You think GoodRatte changed his immigration policies on his website by accident?

Step by step, slowly they come ….

entagor on January 29, 2014 at 12:25 PM

He doesn’t care. He is a statist GOP shill. I really don’t even know why I read the garbage at HA anymore.
besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Though this site has slipped behind conservative blogs recently, it (and these comments!) still attract a lot of readers. Please continue to comment. Your comments are read by many people.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Lee would have sufficed…er, HA won’t feature him, nor did Faux.
To Hades with all the RINOs/traitors of the land, the ones who always enable the leftist thugs.
Schadenfreude on January 29, 2014 at 12:02 PM

I would have liked to have seen this site cover Lee’s response.

Ed, if you’re reading these comments, please note that readers would appreciate such coverage.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Lee’s absence is striking in a conservative blog

entagor on January 29, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Because some one born in the states is is not illegal, so the blanket statement of “illegal aliens” is wrong…and due process is a legal term, yes, an actual legal term.
But go ahead and re-post and add and subtract whatever quotes you want if it makes you feel better. Or if you were so confused you didn’t understand.
right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Huh??? Are you under the false impression that the illegal aliens in question were somehow born in the United States? Are you aware that Mexico is not part of the United States?

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Not2bright sees illegal aliens as merely undocumented Americans.

Rumor has it, that, to show his solidarity with the “undocumented,” he can be heard joining in with the illegal alien activist chants of, “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us!”

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Well, that puts me in a similar class as President Reagan, so thank you.
And of course people like you think there is only one solution to your problem…you can’t see your solution won’t ever work, so we will have a perpetual problem because it won’t ever be resolved the way you want it to…or, you swallow and compromise.

You think that someone who wants a logical approach, means total capitulation, because you can’t seem to think that their could be a better solution, than one that won’t work or at best even voted on.

So you can do all the wish casting you want…your solution won’t ever be considered,therefore, nothing will be done and the flow will continue.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 12:29 PM

She used the amnesty code words. But, whatever. What I find most amusing is your use of hyperbole/strawmen right after your indignation about bluegill doing the same! Classic.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:07 PM

I guess you miss the sarcasm as using the same phraseology…not surprising.

So your solution is what? You seem not to like any reform, so how do you resolve the problem?

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 12:32 PM

He doesn’t care. He is a statist GOP shill. I really don’t even know why I read the garbage at HA anymore.
besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Though this site has slipped behind conservative blogs recently, it (and these comments!) still attract a lot of readers. Please continue to comment. Your comments are read by many people.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:26 PM

It’s like they are trying to shake the bugs off the banquet

Everyone can see a change. Just like everyone saw when the GOP leadership brought out the brass knuckles. Pretenses are dropping everywhere. I advise folk not to leave. Eventually, they will either tell you to leave, or cut your privileges so no one knows why you dont post anymore.

I enjoy the thick skinned ones who stay on and fight the fight

Guess this is the first step. Changing the topics from conservative interest points, to RINO rallying points

entagor on January 29, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Well, that puts me in a similar class as President Reagan, so thank you.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Does it really?

According to Ronald Reagan himself, as told to his trusted long-time friend and U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, the biggest mistake of his presidency was signing the 1986 amnesty for what turned out to be more than half the five million illegal immigrants in the country. Reagan was uncomfortable with the amnesty but was persuaded by some of the leaders of his own party (still living) that it would only affect a small number of illegal immigrants and would assure that Congress would follow through with more vigorous enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. The misnamed Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was touted by its supporters as “comprehensive immigration reform” that would grant amnesty only to a few long-settled immigrants and strengthen border security and internal immigration enforcement against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants.

Read the rest here: http://www.vdare.com/posts/ed-meese-says-reagan-regretted-1986-amnesty

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Read the rest here: http://www.vdare.com/posts/ed-meese-says-reagan-regretted-1986-amnesty

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:34 PM

This is actually a myth. “When contacted, Meese said that he ‘never heard Reagan say it was his biggest mistake and he’s never claimed to have heard that.’”

You can read the full article here:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/internet-myth-ronald-reagan-regretted-legalization/

GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Guess this is the first step. Changing the topics from conservative interest points, to RINO rallying points
entagor on January 29, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Yep, and this site linked to the “No Labels” response, but apparently no almost mention of the tea party response:

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/01/29/video-the-no-labels-response-to-the-state-of-the-union/

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Right2bright, you apparently have a history on this site of putting down innercity blacks

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Your a real piece of work, aren’t you?

Don’t tie me to any racism, you piece of garbage…when I say inner city welfare, that could be anyone, you think the inner city is only blacks? Ever been to East LA, you stupid moron…Ever been to areas of Atlanta, white trailer trash…I live in an metropolitan area that just outside, one in 6 live in trailers, and this typical southern white trash trailers, no blacks in that area…they can’t put a sentence together, but they know every welfare scheme in the books.

So keep your racism card for yourself…it’s the welfare suckers, that live in and around the inner city that is sucking our money.

So screw you and your “history”…next time stick to facts and honest opinions, not your stupid foolish racist rant.

And too set the record straight, it was Reagan working with the dems on immigration reform that he regretted…they are the ones who dismantled his excellent program.

And yes I do support people who come here, work hard, want to improve their life…you think every Italian immigrant was “legal”, what do you thing WOP means, with out papers, you think every Irishman was legal?

People come here, risk their lives, to be part of America…not a bad attribute, to risk your life to better your family life…better than going down on the 1st and 15th to pick up your welfare check.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 12:42 PM

GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Regardless, the amnesty was a disaster, the border was never secured, and another mass amnesty will only encourage and lead to more illegal immigration in the future.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:43 PM

As a mouthpiece for the GOP I find her boring…too
wordy, too monotone, too, well boring.

However, I find the GOP leadership mostly boring as well.

And I find the lefties, while not always boring, always the most self serving, lying ba$stards in politics. With the republicans
sniffing their butts not too far behind (pun intended).

Amjean on January 29, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Regardless, the amnesty was a disaster, the border was never secured, and another mass amnesty will only encourage and lead to more illegal immigration in the future.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:43 PM

This has nothing to do with why I was responding to you. Right2bright said that he’s in good company with Reagan. You said that Reagan called it his biggest mistake. But that’s just not true, and I was calling you out on it.

Also, shame on you for pulling the race card on him/her. You’ve become a one-trick pony on here with your anti-amnesty rants and using the race card. If you want to have a meaningful debate, stick to substance. Leave the juvenile personal attacks to the liberals.

GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 12:47 PM

GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Reagan said his biggest mistake was trusting the dems on this issue…and he never, never, did that again. He never forgave them.

That was the beginning of the “great divide” between Republican’s and dems…That is why Gingrich came in and kicked their @ss…

When we got control of both houses, the Republicans, out of retribution, gave no quarter…and when Clinton came in, he had to fold his tent and adopt welfare reform and other Republican ideas.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Does enforcing immigration laws mean losing the Hispanic vote? Does passing amnesty mean winning the Hispanic vote?

Not exactly:

In 1980 and in 1984 Ronald Reagan received 35% of the Hispanic vote and in 37% respectively.

In 1996 Reagan signed the IRCA amnesty which legalized over 3 million illegal aliens, with 12- 15 million additional beneficiaries from chain migration. Hispanics were overwhelmingly rewarded with amnesty. But…

In 1998 George H.W. Bush, who supported the IRCA as Vice President got only 30% of the Hispanic vote, 7 points fewer than Reagan and less than two years after the amnesty went into effect.

In 1992 Bush-1 saw his Hispanic vote total decline to 25%, a 12 point drop from Reagan’s second election, and he lost the election to Bill Clinton.

In 1996, five weeks before the November election, Clinton signed the IIRIRA, the toughest immigration enforcement legislation in a generation and Hispanics rewarded him with a staggering 71% of the vote for his re-election.

Article source: http://www.examiner.com/article/win-the-hispanic-vote-with-tough-immigration-enforcement

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Just one fact…if you have a child in America, that child is an American citizen…what do you do with the parents? Separate them? What about the little phrase:

If they are born here to citizens of another country, the children in fact have dual citizenship. They can go back to whatever country their parents came from and be full citizens there, or their parents can choose to leave them here with other caregivers.

cptacek on January 29, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Reagan said his biggest mistake was trusting the dems on this issue…and he never, never, did that again. He never forgave them.

That was the beginning of the “great divide” between Republican’s and dems…That is why Gingrich came in and kicked their @ss…

When we got control of both houses, the Republicans, out of retribution, gave no quarter…and when Clinton came in, he had to fold his tent and adopt welfare reform and other Republican ideas.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Yup.

GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Leave the juvenile personal attacks to the liberals.
GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 12:47 PM

We know you are upset that conservative voters will not accept pro-illegal alien amnesty candidates. On here you often attack conservatives who understand the importance of stopping amnesty.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:57 PM

If they are born here to citizens of another country, the children in fact have dual citizenship. They can go back to whatever country their parents came from and be full citizens there, or their parents can choose to leave them here with other caregivers.
cptacek on January 29, 2014 at 12:50 PM

It would be a longshot, sadly, but the correct course of action would be to end birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was to settle the question of freed slaves, and was never intended to provide citizenship to illegal alien anchor babies.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 1:02 PM

We know you are upset that conservative voters will not accept pro-illegal alien amnesty candidates. On here you often attack conservatives who understand the importance of stopping amnesty.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Yeah, that’s why I hated Romney so much. Do you even know what you’re talking about anymore?

GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Because some one born in the states is is not illegal, so the blanket statement of “illegal aliens” is wrong…

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Huh? No kidding people born in the US aren’t illegal aliens. I’ll let you continue this conversation with yourself since you have clearly reinvented the English language to suit your own needs.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 1:04 PM

To clarify, I mean to repeal the birthright amendment.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 1:09 PM

This has nothing to do with why I was responding to you. Right2bright said that he’s in good company with Reagan. You said that Reagan called it his biggest mistake. But that’s just not true, and I was calling you out on it.

GOPRanknFile on January 29, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Whether his biggest mistake was amnesty or trusting the Democrats on amnesty is largely beside the point. Because the GOP is doing both again. I actually would like to have some sort of immigration reform – I think it is needed. But I do not trust the Democrats or the GOP on the issue.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 1:09 PM

But I do not trust the Democrats or the GOP on the issue.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 1:09 PM

No argument from me…and the border has to be locked down and secure…job number one.

About one of the few jobs the feds should and are required to do…but they seem to do everything else but that.

Once the border is secure, very secure, than we will have a better idea on the next step…but never a “next step” without a secure tight border policy that cannot be changed on a whim.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Huh? No kidding people born in the US aren’t illegal aliens. I’ll let you continue this conversation with yourself since you have clearly reinvented the English language to suit your own needs.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I am not sure how to respond to this, I thought you were being sarcastic or just weird.

Maybe you didn’t know, but have you heard of the term “Anchor baby”?

14th amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 1:22 PM

You think that separating a child from their parents is the pursuit of happiness for the child? You think the Supreme Court is going to rule that not all citizens are created equal?

Really, you think you can change the Constitution because you don’t like kids born here of foreign parents?

That is just one minor (or major) legal hurdle, and you don’t think those thousands of cases won’t tie up our legal system?

Of course there has to be a better way…first is what she said, secure the border, and she has been unwavering on that.

Now do what Reagan attempted, but was fooled by the dems, create a logical step where good, qualified, hard working, honest men and women can enter, and the ones that have proven themselves can stay with some “hoops” they have to jump through.

Now take those hard working immigrants, and compare them to the welfare generation in the inner city…who do you want as a “citizen”?

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 11:48 AM

So, people came here illegally, had some kids, and that is why we can’t deport illegals? Send them back where they came from. That they have children who may be citizens is their problem. They can take them back with them or leave them here to be adopted. I don’t care what they do with them. They broke the law and should not be rewarded because they had kids. By that logic, we shouldn’t send a murderer to prison because it wouldn’t be fair to his children to leave them deprived of their father.

Bitter Clinger on January 29, 2014 at 1:26 PM

I watched her response and while it was very pleasant and non-threatening I was very disappointed in it. She may very well be all that Ed claims her to be but she said absolutely NOTHING! It was like a Sunday school greeting with all smiles and no substance. Is the GOP so afraid of rocking the boat before the next election that this is their vision for us? We needed an alternative to EVERY single program that Obama has begun and failed at. We didn’t need platitudes and kumbaya sentiment.

inspectorudy on January 29, 2014 at 1:26 PM

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 11:48 AM

No amnesty. Understand? Front door, back door; blanket or piecemeal, I don’t want to hear about legalization or pathways until the border is sealed for at least a decade. There has never been a serious effort to do this, the Feds pass laws to build walls they never fund and outright lie about “getting the message” to get re-elected.

Any nonsense about “losing” because of this issue should be ignored for two reasons:

1) Once movement begins on legalizing some illegal aliens, we’ll see lawsuits and political demagoguery which claim Republicans are enforcing the law unequally to divide the hispanic community, picking winners and losers, and keeping mothers and daughters apart. The flood gates will be forced open because some foolish Republicans felt they needed to do something.

2) Once over 10 million Democrats are legal voters, the GOP is dead for multiple generations in this country and the public school system combined with liberal Academia will blackout small government ideology entirely. Good luck coming back from that.

Daemonocracy on January 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM

3) Oh, and it should also be mentioned that imigration is at the bottom of most people’s lists of what is important to them.

No way can I support this woman if she sides with Boehner and Cantor.

Daemonocracy on January 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM

. By that logic, we shouldn’t send a murderer to prison because it wouldn’t be fair to his children to leave them deprived of their father.

Bitter Clinger on January 29, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Well, murderer is an extreme example and a straw man, but this government has no problem throwing a mother or father in jail for not paying their taxes. American families will get broken up if dad can’t pay uncle Sam.

Daemonocracy on January 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Why should LibSquealAndDie stay around? It took over the thread with one post.

Meremortal on January 29, 2014 at 1:38 PM

I thought she was great. Very approachable, intelligent and REAL.

dpduq on January 29, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Well, murderer is an extreme example and a straw man, but this government has no problem throwing a mother or father in jail for not paying their taxes. American families will get broken up if dad can’t pay uncle Sam.

Daemonocracy on January 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM

It might be an extreme example but how is it a straw man? I mean were talking about breaking up families if we take a particular action.

Bitter Clinger on January 29, 2014 at 2:00 PM

I am not sure how to respond to this, I thought you were being sarcastic or just weird.

Maybe you didn’t know, but have you heard of the term “Anchor baby”?

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Yes. I understand. But, I don’t think that anyone is calling the anchor baby an illegal alien. Thus, my confusion (?) with what the heck you were talking about. If you’re talking about how to treat child citizens with illegal aliens, the child doesn’t have to be deported. He can certainly leave with his parents and return upon his majority. And, as Daemonocracy noted, the Feds have no problems splitting up families when the parent commits other offenses, even trivial ones. I don’t know why this crime should receive special consideration.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 2:13 PM

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

“…And subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the clause that can be used to challenge the 14th Amendment. If a diplomat’s pregnant wife has a baby here, that baby is not a citizen because the parents are not subject to US jurisdiction. They have loyalties to their home jurisdiction – not to the US.

monalisa on January 29, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Wow, really? My 22 y/o daughter STILL can’t find a job, almost a year after graduating from a top South Bend institution. She told me that, for the first time, she finally has some hope for 2014/2016 elections, that someone “sane” will be elected.

Yeah, not a THING for the “younger folks”. Cripes, do you truly think a twenty-something wants to be called “folk”?

herm2416 on January 29, 2014 at 8:34 AM

I thought that Notre Dame was such a Kool-Aid drinking culture that they only hired fellow Notre Dame grads.

Illinidiva on January 29, 2014 at 2:32 PM

“…And subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the clause that can be used to challenge the 14th Amendment. If a diplomat’s pregnant wife has a baby here, that baby is not a citizen because the parents are not subject to US jurisdiction. They have loyalties to their home jurisdiction – not to the US.

monalisa on January 29, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Possibly, but there is zero chance that John “It’s a Tax” Roberts would find that way. He might agree with you, but the law is meaningless to him – what really matters is whether the NYT likes him.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 2:34 PM

It would be a longshot, sadly, but the correct course of action would be to end birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was to settle the question of freed slaves, and was never intended to provide citizenship to illegal alien anchor babies.

bluegill on January 29, 2014 at 1:02 PM

So the current administration can just deny citizenship to people it doesn’t like? Perhaps citizenship will only be a privilege held by a narrow group of people like in Rome.

Illinidiva on January 29, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Mother of a two month old. Nice.

Dandapani on January 29, 2014 at 2:43 PM

So the current administration can just deny citizenship to people it doesn’t like? Perhaps citizenship will only be a privilege held by a narrow group of people like in Rome.

Illinidiva on January 29, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Based on what they’ve done in the past, I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought so.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 3:09 PM

So the current administration can just deny citizenship to people it doesn’t like? Perhaps citizenship will only be a privilege held by a narrow group of people like in Rome.

Illinidiva on January 29, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Before Ted Kennedy (D-Hell) changed the immigration law to have birthright citizenship, could the government deny citizenship to people it didn’t like?

cptacek on January 29, 2014 at 3:20 PM

She was giving us e-harmony commercial realness. A great appeal to white voters over 50 I suppose, but nothing for younger folks.

libfreeordie on January 29, 2014 at 8:06 AM

Because nobody excites younger folks quite like Hillary, huh…

cicerone on January 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM

And, as Daemonocracy noted, the Feds have no problems splitting up families when the parent commits other offenses, even trivial ones. I don’t know why this crime should receive special consideration.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Maybe having a child is not a crime, and that it is covered by the constitution…and the fact that different crimes have different justice applied.

If you jaywalk, they don’t take away your child, if you shoplift they don’t take away your child.

I don’t know of any “trivial” (whatever that means) offenses were the child is removed from the parents.

But the fact is, the child didn’t commit the crime…well, in some of the wacko’s thinking being a Mexican is a crime.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Daemonocracy on January 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Then you won’t be supporting any candidate that can win…it’s that simple, sorry, I didn’t make the “rules”. That is how it has played out.

There is no stat, no poll, nothing that would ever show that anything but some kind of pathway to citizenship would be acceptable.

So put down the war paint, and get practical…we need to make sure the border is locked down secure, than we need to develop a pathway, just like our ancestors received when they arrived illegally.

Millions of our ancestors, like I stated what do you think WOP stands for? With Out Papers, most of the Italians entered here illegally, most Irish did also, look what a mess they made of our country…

It’s fact Jack, whine all you want, a pathway will be the only way it is resolved…so make sure it’s the most detailed, best laid out, and you will forever get to have your lawn manicured, your new home built and your dishes washed at your favorite restaurant…I will promise you, you don’t want the welfare recipients from Detroit doing it, they will be ticked off about the fact they were taken off welfare and put to work…

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Maybe having a child is not a crime, and that it is covered by the constitution…and the fact that different crimes have different justice applied.

If you jaywalk, they don’t take away your child, if you shoplift they don’t take away your child.

I don’t know of any “trivial” (whatever that means) offenses were the child is removed from the parents.

But the fact is, the child didn’t commit the crime…well, in some of the wacko’s thinking being a Mexican is a crime.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Nobody said having a child is a crime. Your response is nonsensical. Illegally entering this country is a crime. Not paying your taxes is a crime. Having an expending shell casing in DC is a crime. Your family can be split up as a result of committing all sorts of crimes. Unlike these other crimes, however, if a parent breaks an immigration law, the child can actually stay with the parent by leaving the country with the parent (the child cannot go to jail with the parent), with the ability to return at will, or can stay in the country. The child is not “taken away” in any sense.

Enough with the stupid straw men and non sequiturs.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 4:21 PM

The child is not “taken away” in any sense.

Enough with the stupid straw men and non sequiturs.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Throwing out the words straw men and non…is an old trick that is over used.

Removing a citizen from America without committing a crime will not hold up in court, I don’t care how many straw men you erect…

The fact the child is forced to be with a parent, and the parent…never mind you won’t understand.

Just leave it that a citizen of the United States has certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away, no matter the age…get it? Trust me, it’s part of the founding documents.

No, you won’t…

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 4:44 PM

She sounded like Shirley Temple.
And she kept making this juicy swallowing sound, which, thankfully, was harder to hear on the above video.
Other than that, for a time when the country is being ravaged by a communist community organizer and on death’s door, it sucked.

Oh for the days of Palin and Bachmann or any other leader with some balls to respond to these filthy Democrats.

justltl on January 29, 2014 at 6:30 PM

The only legitimate GOP response to Barky is impeachment. Anything short of that is dereliction of duty, and when the GOP jumped into the puppy-munching feast with Barky to give aid and comfort to an invading army of illegals they went past dereliction into straight-out treason.

I didn’t bother listening to Barky’s idiotic speech last night and I don’t give a sh#t what the GOP response to it was. Actions speak louder than words. Barky’s actions are generally illegal and un-Constitutional and there are no words from the GOP that stop that.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM S.D.

Immigration is dead last on my list.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Your argument is specious. Courts give and take custody of U.S. citizen children on a regular basis.

S. D. on January 29, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Throwing out the words straw men and non…is an old trick that is over used.

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 4:44 PM

You are relying on fallacy. Calling you on it is not a trick. If you want people to stop pointing out your flawed arguments, stop making them.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Removing a citizen from America without committing a crime will not hold up in court, I don’t care how many straw men you erect…

The fact the child is forced to be with a parent, and the parent…never mind you won’t understand.

Just leave it that a citizen of the United States has certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away, no matter the age…get it? Trust me, it’s part of the founding documents.

No, you won’t…

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Nobody is talking about forcing the removal a citizen from the US. That, my friend, is a strawman. Argue against it all you want. You win. I agree with you. Because I am not promoting any US citizen being forced to leave the country; they can leave if they want, stay if they want.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Nobody is talking about forcing the removal a citizen from the US. That, my friend, is a strawman. Argue against it all you want. You win. I agree with you. Because I am not promoting any US citizen being forced to leave the country; they can leave if they want, stay if they want.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Like I said, you wouldn’t or couldn’t understand…you must not have any children.

And it is not a straw man when you say you will separate a child from their parent, history pretty clear and settled on that…

Of the 11,000+ cases involving anchor babies, around 7,500 the parents were allowed green cards to stay…the other nearly 4,000 were not because one or both of the parents were involved in serious felonies.

In other words, the courts need a substantial reason (felony) to force the family to leave…otherwise, universally, 100% of the time, the judge rules that the family can stay with the child in America.

Hardly a “straw man” argument…but good try.

Good evening…

right2bright on January 29, 2014 at 8:45 PM

I watched her response and while it was very pleasant and non-threatening I was very disappointed in it. She may very well be all that Ed claims her to be but she said absolutely NOTHING! It was like a Sunday school greeting with all smiles and no substance. Is the GOP so afraid of rocking the boat before the next election that this is their vision for us? We needed an alternative to EVERY single program that Obama has begun and failed at. We didn’t need platitudes and kumbaya sentiment.

inspectorudy on January 29, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Exactly my reaction. A waste of air-time! Can we please stop hearing about the “life-story” of these public figures, as if they are minor saints? “I was poor, but look at me now!” is not interesting or relevant to the nations problems and the abject failure of this government.

Look, if the GOP was afraid of unforced errors, they didn’t have to have a rebuttal at all. Once again, the GOP seems unable to fight their corner.

virgo on January 31, 2014 at 11:30 AM

It is positively amazing how the GOP never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity .

WHY didn’t they just submit the State of the State address from Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and force them to broadcast that?

Pole-Cat on February 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2