Us, or Them?

UPDATE: 10:30pm CST.      Welcome Instapundit guests!

And it seems I've some in agreement, and some comments and links which are just howlers.  A bit late tonight for me to fully respond to the comments (and hate mail), but I'll give it all a good run through tomorrow morning.  Until then, keep the cards n' letters coming.

Remember this though.  I'm just as committed to:  1.  The Fence.  2. NO AMNESTY.  3. Militarization of the border, as needed.  4.  Instantly deporting all illegal alien felons.  5.  Cutting off the "carrot", i.e; the social services which support so many millions of illegal aliens.  6.  No "fast track" to Citizenship, other than that which any Legal Immigrant must accept.

And I'm committed to voting out any RINO pacifist who wants to kowtow to Fox and the reconquistas.

What I've pointed out though in this essay, is that among ourselves, manners matter.  Or, at least they should, lest we be confused with our opponents on the left.

Now, on to your reading.  Welcome aboard!

A day and a half after the President's speech on illegal immigration and our Southern border.

In that time, I've made a pretty fair scan of the sites on my blogroll, as  well as many others which were linked by their own articles.  I've clicked-through to a whole lot of InstaLinks, and some from Drudge.  It has been to say the least, interesting.

Now, in my scant three years of manning the helm here at Smoke on the Water, I've never let up on reading what's out there, even though I've suffered some extended, self-imposed absences from this keyboard.  And in that time, I have formed many friendships, both purely online, and not a mere few which have become freinds in the coporeal world.

Some other site-authors and commentators exist out there who I'd never want to be friends with.  Or for that matter, even associate with.  Nor, with whom to be compared.

Kos, and his demented minions.  Atrios, for similar reasons.  And the entire cesspool which is the Democratic Underground....  a toilet long overdue for flushing.

What these sites and their leftist synchophants are famous for, is their never ending hatred of, and unreasonable anger towards, any and all things conservative; all things Bush!  And not a well-reasoned anger, or for that manner, any reason whatsoever.  It is enough that Bush breathes for them to erupt as the snarling pack of rabid curs that they are.

It is bad enough to read their ragings, ravings and rants.  One's head simply cannot comprehend how in their throes of hate, how any semblence of reason, logic or any sort of orderly thought process can be so lacking in an otherwise human skull. 

In fact, the mere style of their hate is their hallmark, and they're justly known for their lunacy, and well laughed upon by their betters from the universe of reason and sanity.  Moonbats, we call them, and rightly so.

But now, I fear for us.  For the conservative blogosphere's anger towards President Bush has begun to resemble the foam flecked frothy faced insanity of the left.

And I do not like the comparison.  We're better than that, and we're better than them.

Get this through your heads, my friends.  We've already made a difference, we've forced the issue and are beginning to see some traction in our direction.    I, too, don't think the President's speech was enough, but it was a start.  A wobbly start, admittedly, but would you have no improvements at all, or can you take a breath and pause in your intemperate rage long enough to realize, that it's a start?

Granted, it's not much of a start, and leaves much to be desired.  So, we'll just have to press on, relentlessly keeping the pressure on for those desires to be realized.  But we must do it in a manner in keeping with the ethos of our Tribe.

Hell yes, keep the pressure on and keep those cards, calls, letters and e-mails going to your congresscritters.  They need to know...hell, President Bush needs to know, that we're more or less politely, not going to let up just because a good start has been launched.  But we also cannot punish them for making a start, or elsewise, why would they find it reasonable to listen to us, if we but punish them for at long last, responding?

For the fools who oppose us, and the RINOS, well, that's what primaries are for.  Run some real conservatives against them, and keep hammering away on the issues.  Where it counts, which is only in the voting booth.

Keep the pressure on in the blogs, and with everyone in your life's reach.  And do so in a manner so as to be a credit to yourself, your politics and your tribe.

Dammit, do it as a Citizen that your fellow American can look to, and respect.  Not like the leftist assnuggets on the Hate Bush! side of the planet.

Tony Blankley opens "The Price of Secure Borders" with:

I've always found that avoiding insanity is useful in life — which in American politics sometimes puts one in the minority. As a second proposition I would argue that when in negotiations, if he with whom you are negotiating is moving in your direction, don't walk out of the room.

Of course, anything by the esteemed Mr. Blankely deserves the read the whole thing endorsement.

Blogrolled sage DANEgerous wisely points us to NRO columnist Jim Geraghty's ten-ring take on the subject.

...as I mentioned, what kind of lengths do you think the Democrats will go to in order to keep power once they’ve got it? Does the “Fairness Doctrine” ring a bell? You think Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t try that tactic to hinder conservative talk radio? How about McCain-Feingold 2.0, with a particular focus on controlling “unregulated speech” on the Internet and blogs?

Think the MSM was cheerleading for Democrats in 2004? How much more fair and balanced do you think they’ll be when their task is to defend Democratic House and Senate majorities AND elect President Hillary Rodham Clinton? My guess is, they’ll make the CBS memo story look accurate and evenhanded by comparison.

Think the GOP can prevail in close races once they’re out of power? Ask the members of the military who had their ballots in Florida blocked. Ask Doug Forrester how well his anti-Torricelli campaign worked when he suddenly faced Frank Lautenberg at the last minute. Ask Dino Rossi. Ask Democrat Tim Johnson if he’s glad the last county in South Dakota to report its results just happened to have enough of a Democratic margin to put him over the top in 2002.

You don't win by losing.

And linked from the same DANEgerous post from above, this from Karl Maher.  In Buddhist Republicans, he writes:

I remarked somewhere, on this blog or the other one, that one of my earliest political memories was seeing a Vietnamese Buddhist monk on the evening news immolate himself. He seemed peaceful, in the Lotus position. Just another Karma-related fatality, though; didn't do much for Vietnam.

Well, tonight I have seen Republicans set themselves on fire. I don't really know what got the monk's toga twisted. But illegal immigration has really done it for Republicans. Check the Corner, where Kathryn Lopez has made an absolute ass of herself; check the open thread at Redstate, check the comment thread on your favorite conservative blog.......

Go and read what follows that, espeically his list of Bush accomplishments and milestones from five years in office.

So, does all of this make you think that I'm satisfied with the President's speech?  Well, I'm not. Nor am I happy with his insistence of the pursuit of a comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.  Not in the least.  I would far prefer to first secure the border, and then discuss what next to do.

But I am happy that immigration has found it's way onto the Executive Radar, at long last.  At least it's there, and it's our team fielding the ball.

Our job now is to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

And that's a real possibility, given the venal and ill tempered viperitude being vented by otherwise sensible opinionists, bloggers and even nationally syndicated columnists from the right.

Again, from Geraghty:

But apparently the Kos are not the only ones with an all-or-nothing mentality. Sometimes in life you have to use the West Coast offense, nickel and diming your way down the field instead of going for the long bomb. If I want a more conservative government, I get it by electing the more conservative of the two choices, even if he isn’t as conservative as I would like. I do not get it by sitting on the sidelines and pouting, and letting the less conservative guy take the reigns of power.

So I put it to you.  Are you going to act like the US, which as brought us so far, so solidly and so successfully, or are you going to act like THEM ?

It is said:  "That which we admire, that which we emulate, we become."

And I have long admired the the Conservative community, be it newswriters, authors, columnists, bloggers and friends.  It has always tended to attract the mature of mind, the responsible, the civil, the well reasoned and well spoken.  The Grownup Party, if you will.  I've always wanted to emulate the best of who, and what, we are.  But then of course, we always do seem to go from that lofty perch, and fire countless rounds right through our own feet.  The Stupid Party, and we may well deserve the title.

Conversely, I've always been struck by the childlike petulence of the left, with their immature logic, temper tatrums, their overwhelming and overreaching and over-loud pouting and shouting.  The Evil Party, and no more fitting a monniker can they ever wear.

It pains me that I find a significant few of the conservatives whom I admire, to be acting just like them.

I have seen the Stupid Party, and it is US!

UPDATE, 18 May 06,     Noon, CST.

Other blogs linking with this post:

The Other Side of Kim

The Anchoress

Kitty Litter

Gulf Coast Pundit

Lucianne "Must Reads of the Day" (18 May 06)

Dr. Sanity

The Anti-Idiotorian Rottweiller

The Democracy Project

Random Nuclear Strikes

Leslie's Ominibus

Supply Side Politics

plus, see those trackbacks!

Comments

[Zhombre]

Whatcha gonna do? It comes down to voting Insane Clown Posse-D or Insane Clown Posse-R. The D is more clown than posse and the R may be more posse than clown, but insane is contagious it seems.

[Sigivald]

Demanding ideological purity over practical results is... the MO of the Libertarian Party.

Brings a rush of clarity, doesn't it?

[Jason Coleman]

Jim,
I agree completely.

--Jason

[Brian Carnell]

"If I want a more conservative government, I get it by electing the more conservative of the two choices, even if he isn’t as conservative as I would like."

We've gone from a period in the mid-1990s when there were conservatives with actual principles you could vote for, to now saying "Well, my candidate is a little to the right of Ted Kennedy, so I'll just plug my nose and vote."

This view fundamentally misunderstands electoral politics. Until conservatives punish these liberals in conservative clothing at the polls, there's no need for them to change their ways. They know they can continue on their spending spree, etc., and a) conservatives won't leave them for fear of a Democratic return to power, and b) they'll gradually attract more moderate and liberal voters.

Bottom line: you won't ever get more conservative government by voting for the Republicans as they are currently constituted. You'll just get more of the same mush that you can rationalize away as "the other guys would be even worse."

[Courton Voorhies]

Your comparison is not apt. The anger that many of us feel now is a consequence of reasoned thought and an understanding of the probable outcomes associated with the continuing failure of the President and our federal representives to act appropriately on what may be some of the most crucial issues this nation has ever faced.

Now we read that the Republicans intend to rely on a fear-based strategy in November that can be essentially captured by the phrase "Speaker Pelosi." Thus do they hope to perpetuate their positions of privilege and power, even as they continue to sell out those they were sent to serve.

For their cowardly failure to act, and their craven abandonment of principle, honor and duty to country, they deserve naught but scorn and disgrace.

[toni]

Found you via Instapundit. I've never blamed GW for this. I knew back in 2000 his view on illegal aliens. He talked back then about a "guest worker" program. Sept. 11th didn't change his view. BUT, I am extremely angry with the Senate Republicans. I expected them to listen to their constituency or at least their base. I want to hurt many of them very bad. There's a select few which deserve worse than a tongue lashing and hopefully they will feel it from the voting booth. Other than that, I don't believe in using inflamatory words or invectives on my blog. Maybe I don't read the "right" blogs but I have not seen the Koz idiocy on the blogs I read.

[RKV]

The time to get conservatives into position is in the primaries - even if it means dumping sitting Republicans when they are off the reservation on critical issues. Would to God this could happen to McCain.

[Whitehall]

"Don't get mad; get even."

The essential power of citizenship is your vote. It can be exercised in more than federal elections. Look at the attention paid to the city council elections in Henrdon, Virginia.

Here in San Jose, California, we're having a mayorial election June 6. I'm asking each candidate two questions on immigration:
1) will the city police assist in enforcing immigration laws?
2) will the city recognize the IDs from the Mexican Consulate?

I suggest you do the same in every election until the political class gets the point.

[ScottM]

It would be easier for right-wingers to stay sane if they would just admit that Bush is a liberal. Bush's liberalism is not, of course, the shrieking, America-hating "liberalism" of the modern Democrats, but a gooey sentimental liberalism which believes that a government's chief responsibility is to be nice, both to its own citizens and to the citizens of other nations.

Domestic policy? "When someone hurts, government has got to move."

Immigration? "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande."

Foreign policy? "The desire for freedom resides in every human heart."

See? Liberal.

It took me a while to admit this to myself (though I never bought into the fiction that Bush was a conservative). It's extremely liberating, and keeps me from getting too angry when Bush follows his liberal instincts.

I think conservatives may need to face the possibility that we may be entering another age where organized political conservatism is of little or no relevance, and that the real battles are going to be fought between various kinds of leftism. After all, it's only been 50 or 60 years since the modern American conservative movement was founded. Perhaps it's run its course.

[Dan'l]

STUPID party? Well, maybe, but this is the first time I've encountered your ranting and raving, and you are a super-nova moron, sir. You make the stupids look good. Keep it up, we need mentalities like yours; they are inspirational, and so flattering.

[Twok]

Read about anti-Americanism across the world over here. Some surprises on which countries are actually pro-America.

[Michael Mealling]

This past election was the first time I voted for a Republican. I'd been a Libertarian activist for almost 20 years (and I'm only 37). The War on Terror was pretty much the only issue I cared, and still care, about. So I'll be voting for a Republican again for President for that simple reason only.

But that doesn't mean I'm willing to give the Republican house or senate a free pass on spending and the New-Deal-esque growth of government. So I investigated things like the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Club for Growth but neither have given me anything I can do myself to affect things.

You could suggest that I go out and research which elections and which candidates that I could affect with donations but I'm running a business and simply don't have time for that. Something like Porkbusters but for targeting Republican primaries would be nice and effective.

There are lots of people out here like me. Give us something we can do...

[Ned R.]

I admit I'd kinda feel more sanguine about your essay were it not for the fact that, at least from what I can tell here, at base you still think anyone even vaguely left = evil and wrong. To pick one counterexample -- my dad, a career Navy man and longtime GOP voter who has chosen in recent years to support more Democratic candidates, would be somewhat perturbed by such a claim. If you mistake the extreme for the whole on the one hand, why do I find your protestations that you are shocked, shocked! to find the equivalent on the other to be rather hollow? If you seriously think qualities like 'childlike petulance' has been the sole province of the left all these years, then I have to wonder.

As long as you are using your elegance to tar with a broad and bristly brush, forgive me if I continue to do what I have always done since I first registered to vote -- which was to never register as a member of a party and never to automatically choose sides, and to observe from outside while voting for the best person or law, not a party, big or small. It is remarkably freeing -- and saves one from problematic idolatries.

[Jack]

>Until conservatives punish these liberals in conservative clothing
>at the polls, there's no need for them to change their ways.

Maybe that's strategy worked other times, but in 2000 all those progressive Nader voters caused Gore to lose to Bush. I presume those voters are still kicking themselves.

[Roy]

I used to think like you and I'd hold my nose and vote for people that I would assume would at least appoint some people that leaned my direction. I lived in Illinois. I voted for George Ryan.

Never again.

[Reid]

Anything I could say, you've already said it. Get a grip, folks. Keep pushing but, for crying out loud, you think the Dems will do more for you?

We are on the cusp of winning convincingly in Iraq. We lose that, and we've lost the WOT. You empower a Democratic Congress to hinder that effort and attempt a reprise of our ignominous retreat from Vietnam, and we will have lost a hell of a lot more than progress on illegal immigration.

[sonicfrog]

"You don't win by losing."

I don't think we would win even if we did - because our party is lost. The Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party. As long as we keep voting the big spending Republocrats into office, there is no impetus for them to change.

If my representative has held the line on spending and not gone all pork-barrely on us, he or she gets my vote. There used to be a notion that the best way to reduce taxes was to reduce spending. It's a simple equation: lower spending = lower taxes!
Don't get me wrong, I am all for the tax cuts. The have definitely generated more revenue in the form of a stronger economy. But for this group in Washington, the extra retinue has only spurred them to spend even more. What will we do when the economy slows??? That will decrease retinue and cutting more taxes, sooner or later, will have less impact due to diminished returns since spending will only continue to increase. Or have we fallen into the same delusional trap that the Clintonite economists of the late 90's did when they proclaimed to have beaten the economic cycle? As long as the notion persists with-in the current ruling body that they are send to congress to spend our money; that my rep can buy my vote, then he or she doesn't get my vote. That is the Democrats way of politics. Sorry, but I'm not for sale.

[sonicfrog]

"retinue"... Where the hell did that come from. And where the 'ell did my "y" go in "They". Damn these Letter Gremlins!

[Jeffus]

Courton Vorhees gets it right. Your comparison is not apt.

Kerry owes his loss to the noisy, impolite jackasses on the left. Bush owes his victory to the noisy, generally polite, and almost never foam-flecked right. But remember, Limbaugh warned Bush and republicans almost three years ago that immigration would split the party faster than anything else and Bush just kept bike-riding, praying, brush clearing, sleeping eight hours every night, signing bills to abrogate our First Amendment rights, disavowing the Swift Boat vets, calling non-violent private citizens "vigilantes", etc.

This administration has shown over and over that the only way to get its attention is to show our tonsils at high volume or, better yet, give the Democrats some talking points with which to beat up Bush.

Had we screamed loud enough he might not have sent McCain-Feingold to the feckless Supreme Court (where does Geraghty get off bringing up McCain-Feingold 2.0? - Bush signed 1.0). If we hadn't screamed loud enough Harriet Miers might be making mischief on the same court.

And if we don't scream now, or perhaps even if we do, The National Guard will be on the border for the shortest time possible, the Border Patrol won't man-up, a federal court judge will issue an injunction against the fence, or the guest worker program, or the fines, etc, etc, and this admin will fold it's tent.

[David Blue]

Great post. Thanks. It's reassuring to see somebody saying this.

George W. Bush is a hard man to deflect. That's a good thing.

But he does listen to conservatives, and sometimes, when he thinks it's wise, he changes course. That's why he sent John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

When I've pressed judges as a reason to applaud George W. Bush, the answer has been: "That's only because we put pressure on him!"

Well, yes. And would Hilary Clinton have listened to you? Would the kinds of people who will get elected to all sorts of positions if conservatives stay at home listen to you?

[Letalis]

Kerry owes his loss to the Clinton operatives that he hired, or was forced or bamboozled into hiring, and who then sabotaged his campaign so that Hillary would be clear to be nominated and run in 2008; and she will. A Kerry victory would have upset Hillary's whole time-table and, to co-opt a phrase, there would've been hell to pay for that. Now all they have to do is find a reasonably viable 3rd party candidate (McCain???) to run and split the anti-Clinton vote. Once that happens, she's in like Flynn with 40-45% of the vote.

[Lee]

I know what it took to go from Goldwater to Reagan so, I know it can be done again. A lot of people calling themselves Republicans are going to lose their phony baloney jobs. It has already started in Pennsylvania.

[cj]

"For the fools who oppose us, and the RINOS, well, that's what primaries are for."

I must hope, when you make a statement like this, that you are *unaware* that my state (Kansas, and I'd be surprised if there weren't others) has canceled presidential primary elections in the past years due to "budget constraints" -- that's right: No presidential primaries, no grass-roots-level input, no way to have a real affect at the citizen level on your choices at the ballot.

The rot is deep, and the blogosphere needs to focus on the structure, rather than the MSM jism.

[KM]

Who are you? And why isn't your background color Deep Purple?

Regardless, thanks for the link. I think we are entirely in agreement. I want a wall. I want to attrit the illegal population. I also want a Republican majority.

The latter more than the former.

[tcobb]

For the most part I agree with you. Lets start out with the fence, and then lets move along to the "guest-worker" program. Instead of digging in our heels and screaming NEVER, I would suggest that conservatives should be amenable to such a plan, but lets use the Democrats as an ally to sabotage it. In essence, lets insist that all employers who hire "guest-workers" have to take out insurance on them to provide for their health care needs. Certainly their families should be covered as well. How could any progressive Democrat oppose such a measure? Give them benefits--lots of expensive benefits--and put the burden on the employer to pay for them. And lets go further---the employers should also have insurance to compensate local governments and individuals who incur financial harm as a result of their presence here. If state X has to incarcerate one of the "guest-workers" for a crime he has committed, make sure the employer has insurance that the state can make a claim against.

After all, this is placing the burden on the evil exploitive capitalist employers. What progressive could oppose this? And if an employer doesn't have the required insurance? Fine him. And oh yes, allow any "guest-workers" who weren't covered by such insurance to sue those employers because they were denied the benefits due them required by law. That way we don't have to worry about the government not enforcing the law. The ambulance chasers will take care of that for us.

But of course, the upshot of this is that the cheap labor will no longer be cheap at all. The number of employers who want to hire them will be small indeed. I think that is what the strategy should be. Use the liberal inclinations to effectively sabotage it by making it economically unviable, all in the name of compassion for both the guest-workers and the citizens of America.

Its just a thought.

[Daniel Medley]

Good post. I view this issue a bit differently than you though. For me, the illegal immigrant situation is quickly becoming critical to the point that much of what the Republic has stood for during these some two hundred years stands to be lost for good. Call me over-zealous in this regard, but I think some of my passion comes from the fact that the solution is so painfully obvious, yet it is being complicated for matters of political and financial gain. The fact that our elected representatives and our President not only fail to see the obvious, they purposely attempt to complicate the issue for their personal reasons rather than regard the purpose of the Republic, is what is so maddening.

Yes, I’m angry. I’m angry because, I believe the Titanic is sinking and we’re supposed to accept a “start” rather than role our sleeves up and do what is needed. It’s too late for a “start.”

In my opinion.

[Indy Jones]

A hundred million approx.,low skilled, welfare-designated, budget busting albeit cheap-labor Mexicans are coming to do the work Americans won't do. This is the leadership plan. Have you seen the flag-waving video? Forget arguing sotto voce or with an edge: the loss of your W.A.S.P.-Western suddenly post-Christian culture alarms only racists. You are not a white rascist, are you? Perhaps we are going to hear the President is importing for us our future army -- to do the work in the war on terror Americans won't do. Or a nurse or two for every retiring boomer. If only we were assured that God is on our side in all this compassionate work. That, for example, this "invasion" is not a judgment for like a hundred million aborted babies.

[cube]

We must remain true to Our Tribe, as you call it. As bad as the right is on the immigration issue, the left will be WORSE.

[Margaret]

We have a duty to our country and our children's and grandchildren's futures to insist that our government consider the ramifications of our border crisis.

Bush is a liberal of the 1950's stripe. We now have two parties of the Left, one Marxist and the other socialist.

God help us when they collude to undermine the demographics and culture and values that made this country great.

I guess that is why I am so angry with Bush. Except for the war, he has failed to meet any of my expectations of "Republican" leadership.

[Inspector Callahan]

Although I AM a conservative, small-government type myself, I think ScottM's comment above is spot on. Maybe this country is not as conservative as we think it is. I think it's the echo chamber effect that blogs have.

Since so many who post on blogs are staunchly anti illegal immigration, it must mean that mostly everyone else is, also. Well, there is a large contingent of libertarians on blogs as well, and that bunch has never won a major election.

Take a truly small government issue like school choice - I would venture to say that the average Republican voter (I'm not talking about Social conservatives, per se). If you tell him/her that vouchers are a great idea, you're liable to hear an earful.

All that aside - those who are hand wringing over Bush now should realize that Bush is NOT a conservative - he's a moderate at best. He believes in big government (just like his dad). This issue, as with every other one, he is handling in that big government fashion.

I still don't know why everyone is so surprised.

TV (Harry)

[Mark]

Its just amazing. In my nearly 50 years on this planet I've never seen such manufactured hysteria over NOTHING as over this immigration foolishness! Bush has given us great judges, tax cuts, and a strong military response to 9/11. These issues are the only deal breakers for me, and ought to be for sensible conservatives. Instead we get blowhards like Tancredo, O'Reilly, Malkin, and Polipundit pounding their high chairs. NRO and Redstate have become unreadable. Are we really that stoopid and lazy that we want to go the "know nothing" route? If so, maybe we really do deserve First Lady Bill Clinton in 08 and Speaker Pelosi in 06. God help us.

[Scott W. Somerville]

Thanks for your VERY helpful post. I've been delighted with the intelligence of the right-wing bloggers... and we'll see if it can survive the passion of the immigration debate. You've done your bit to help.

[gitarope]

What some of ya are forgettin' here (yeah, I'm a Texan) regarding immigration madness, in general, is how it's severely impacting how our public schools must now operate.

Unless some of you have been asleep at the wheel, did it ever occur to you that those kids who DON'T speak the King's English, (at all or enough to understand their homework assignments), are going to get more of a teacher's time than the native-born, English-speaking kids - at the expense of your American, hard-earned tax dollar? You may also not be aware of just how many "pink slips" (some districts call it 'displacing, the real term is TERMINIATING) many of the longtime, dedicated very knowledgeable English-speaking teachers only to replace their jobs with Spanish-speakers? And some states are mandating this be done to appease new educational laws, either federal or state-imposed.

I'm not suggesting we not up-the-bar in our public school system; far from it. Long time coming and badly-needed everywhere. however, what I highly resent is the huge disparity in which native-born-American-English-speaking kids and their teachers are being given their own version of the 'pink slip.'

Priorities are way out of whack here.

[Mark]

I think you are highlighting the real problem. Its not the immigration, its multi-culti silliness and the abandonment of the "melting pot" model that is the threat. This is where the battle with the Libs ought to be fought. C'mon in, but drop the seperatist identity politics stuff. This means esp. groups like La Raza. If we try to fight the battle by attacking Bush we not only miss the mark but guarantee an eventual loss, partly because so many of the anti-immigration absolutists come off looking like a bunch of Brownshirts whether or not that was their original intention. Conservatives should leave the purges of the ideologically impure to the Marxists - let them waste their time ferreting out "Trotskyites" and "Revisionists" as has been the history of the left since the French Revolution.

The idea that Bush is a "liberal" is too silly to argue seriously.

[Dan Schwartz (Cherry Hill, NJ)]

Come on, grow a pair...

Jim, it's long past time to stop fighting the looney left with the Queensbury rules; and instead start your 12-step program to manhood.

Just as we needed to take the gloves off when fighting islamofascist terror, whines from EuroTrash notwithstanding, us Conservatives need to stand up and fight back.


Show me a good loser... And I'll show you a loser.
George Steinbrenner

Dan Schwartz
Cherry Hill, NJ
[email protected]

[Phillep]

Point 1) Much of the talk about Conservative Republicans sitting out 2006 and 2008 repeats stuff spouted by the left. This is an accident?

Point 2) Politicians ignore non voters, and try to get the remaining voters to either vote for them, or sit out the election.

Just exactly what is a vote boycott going to accomplish?

[LC Jackboot]

Thanks for the reasoned, refocusing of the debate. I defer to your irrefutable logic and rational conclusions. We ARE the Party of Stupid, justifiably outraged over the core issue but unaccustomed to being in the "Rage Mode", and rudderless at the moment.

Hat Tip and Hand Salute to the Imperial CNO.

Emissary (Without Portfolio) of the Rott Empire.

[Heidi]

I'm a liberal Democrat (used to be Republican in another life), but I'm totally with you on the immigration issue.

How's Galveston? I lived there for 6 years before moving 20 miles up the road a few months ago.