September 23, 2010

The GOP's "Pledge to America"

Commenter Wilson gives a quick intro to the House Republicans' "Pledge to America," a 2010 version of Newt Gingrich's winning 1994 "Contract with America."
It's basically a George W Bush Redux. It advocates no useful policy on enforcing the borders. It merely advocates (buried way down on page 20) to reaffirm the right of states to enforce immigration laws - a right they already have.

And I'm gunna go out on a limb and wager that it says nothing about eliminating racial preferences or CRA.

But it's opening lines are the best. "America is more than a country. America is an idea...America is an inspiration to those [immigrants] who yearn to be free..."

Aunt Zeituni couldn't have said it better.

Republicans have learned nothing from the Bush years. It's not a question of whether or not GOP policies will win votes, it's a question of whether they will actually make America better. We already know the answer to that.

39 comments:

Sylvia said...

It advocates no useful policy on enforcing the borders.

As I've said before, the corporations want the border open, so it will remain open until they want it closed (which won't be any time soon, as there's no such thing as too much cheap labor).

This will be a fact of life no matter who's in charge. You might as well stop worrying about immigration as there's nothing you can do about it.

Anonymous said...

It seems that the corporation didnt want a war in Iraq either, but we got that anyway. Just shows what a committed, dedicated group can achieve when they put their minds to it.

So, the corporations dont always get what they want, why should immigration be any different?

jack strocchi said...

The REPs stopped thinking about public policy in any kind of intelligent way around 1996, when they finally shoe-horned welfare reform through Congress. Mostly steered by Clinton, a guy with lots more political nous.

Since then they have been on some kind of ideological auto-pilot, calibrating on a mish-mash of libertarianism and anti-communism re-branded as opposition to "Islamofascism".

Of course mostly they have been pocketing campaign donations from Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Construction etc...

I wish they could find some way to clone Ike's DNA and bring him back to life to knock some sense into these infants.

Rrrrrroger said...

States have the "right" to enforce immigration laws, except when the Ruling Class notices and gets an injunction. An injunction not supported by law works as well as a good one against a state. State enforcement could trigger self-deportation, if publicized, which is exactly what the Ruling Class doesn't want. The Arizona injunction also encourages Aunt Zeituni-style feelings of entitlement among illegal aliens. Stopping injunctions like the Arizona one is not all that much, but its more than nothing, and the Ruling Class won't like it. Re Sylvia: She apparently thinks she lives under a corporatist government where the people have no power. If the Ruling Class can get everybody to agree with Sylvia, they win.

Felix said...

It ain't the corporations honey.

Black Death said...

Well, it's certainly better than what we have now. It is wishy-washy on the illegal immigration issue, and the fund-the-troops stuff sounds like an invitation to the neocons to start another war. And they want to end bailouts and TARP - well, 32 (!) Republican senators voted for TARP. The last time the GOP controlled the entire government (2001-2007), we didn't exactly get a lot of budget balancing and spending reductions. They're a bit late getting religion. As for "reforming" Congress, well, how about term limits and a permanent special prosecutor for Congress - the ethics committees (which have equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats) haven't exactly been doing the job. And how about ending pork barrel projects, like the "bridge to nowhere" (sponsored by a Republican)? Still, maybe they've learned something - it's a big improvement over the current mess, even if the glass isn't as full as we'd like it to be.

Anonymous said...

As I've said before, the corporations want the border open, so it will remain open until they want it closed (which won't be any time soon, as there's no such thing as too much cheap labor).

This will be a fact of life no matter who's in charge. You might as well stop worrying about immigration as there's nothing you can do about it.


It has nothing to do with the corporations.

It is all about a bunch of light-weight GOP stooges* who suffer from a deer-in-the-headlights paralysis when confronted with the societal aftermath induced by 50 years' worth of propagandistic brainwashing from the likes of Stanley Levison, Joe Levin, Morris Dees, David Axelrod, and their legions of up & coming intellectual offspring.

Tea Baggers? RACISTS!

National Rifle Assocation? RACISTS!

National Right to Life? RACISTS!

Main Street? RACISTS!

Wall Street? RACISTS!

Home Schoolers? RACISTS!

Evangelical Christians? RACISTS!

Bass Anglers Sportsman Society? RACISTS!

Shape-Note Singers**? RACISTS!

Sooner or later, the GOP [and sane whites & asians everywhere] will have to grow up and realize that we're all racists now.



*PS: Axelrod has singled out Boehner for the full-bore pedal-to-the-metal Alynskyite character assassination because he senses in Boehner the sort of intellectual weakness and moral wishy-washy-ness which can be brought to its knees with a brief but vicious carpet-bombing campaign in the MSM [and, of course, because Mitch McConnell's closeted homosexuality puts him, like Lindsey Grahamnesty, up at the top of the list of GOP traitors who "can be worked with"].


*PPS: SWPLs would do well to realize that it's only a matter of time before attendance at a Renaissance Faire gets you tagged as a RACIST!

And anything having to do with trebuchets is obviously RACIST! already [even if the evil White Man did steal the idea for trebuchets from the ancient Egyptians, who, as we all know, had precisely the skin tone and kinky hair of Spike Lee & Sister Souljah].

Severn said...

It merely advocates (buried way down on page 20) to reaffirm the right of states to enforce immigration laws - a right they already have.




No, the states do not currently have that right. I'd assume that most readers here have heard of the storm surrounding Arizona's attempts to exercise that right.

Severn said...

It's basically a George W Bush Redux. It advocates no useful policy on enforcing the borders. It merely advocates (buried way down on page 20) to reaffirm the right of states to enforce immigration laws - a right they already have.



The whole document is full of gassy rhetoric. The stuff about immigration is no more vague and ambiguous than the rest. But what page 20 says is:



==================================
Establish Operational Control of the Border: We must take action to secure our borders, and that action starts with enforcing our laws. We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border and prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from interfering with Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands.


• Work with State and Local Officials to Enforce Our Immigration Laws: The problem of illegal immigration and Mexican drug cartels engaged in an increasingly violent conflict means we need all hands on deck to address this challenge. We will reaffirm the authority of state and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of all federal immigration laws.


• Strengthen Visa Security: To stop terrorists like Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, we will require the Department of Homeland Security to review all visa applications at high-risk consular posts and prevent aliens from attempting to avoid deportation after having their visas revoked.

=================================

Kylie said...

Steve said, quoting Wilson..."But it's [Pledge to America's] opening lines are the best. 'America is more than a country. America is an idea...America is an inspiration to those [immigrants] who yearn to be free...

Aunt Zeituni couldn't have said it better."

Sure she could have, if by better you mean more honest.

Her version would be something like this: "America is an inspiration to those [immigrants] who yearn for freebies."

And to those who don't read with attention to detail, no, that doesn't mean that all immigrants yearn for freebies, only that for those who do, America is indeed an inspiration.

Anonymous said...

No politician will do anything about illegal immigration until his job depends on doing something about it. And most primaries are over.
- And please, nobody start in with that "we're not going to deport 12 million people" bullshit. If we just started:

1. Prosecuting banks for accepting the Matricula Consular as ID, and

2. Prosecuting employers who hire illegals (knowingly or not--if they don't use the E-Verify system, employer gets big fine), and

3. Pass a law that if you overstay your visa, you do 1 year in Federal pen and can never, never, never become a citizen or come back for any reason

4. Every Federal Law Enforcement agent gets an extra $1,000 for every illegal he catches--Fed cops would stop at Home Depot every night before they went home,

5. Pass a federal law removing jurisdiction of immigration law by federal courts, and no more "born on U.S. soil=American citizen" bullshit.

well then, illegals would find their way home on their own.

Peter A said...

As long as conservative voters continue to believe the GOP represents their interests, mass immigration will be a fact of life. As will gay marriage and legal abortions. Those are three issues that no elite Republicans really want to see seriously challenged.

Richard A. said...

Most Republican politicians talk tough on illegal immigration but most are phony. How can you tell if they are phony or for real? Look at how they stand on the guest worker concept. Republicans are actually worse than Democrats when it comes to guest workers.

What was the Republican great achievement on immigration when they had power? It was the irresponsible expansion in the H-1B visa which screwed over high tech workers. What they have done to high tech workers is what they want to do to workers in general.

Anonymous said...

Hard to stop worrying when your neighborhood is getting bought out by people who shove 18 people into a single house.

Richard A. said...

The key to bringing the flow of illegals to a halt is to crack down on employers of illegals. Can you imagine the cheap labor party doing that?

rich s. said...

So commenter Syl is stuck on the pc-friendly "corporations as evil" reason for the invasion.

Even radio talk hosts have moved beyond that. Savage recently allowed that "they" are trying to divide, ie., marginalize us. (Granted this isn't as specific as Kevin Macdonald might be but it's a good mass-media start.)

Shining light on an elusive "they' will be more productive than blaming corporations.

Whiskey said...

I've read it. Its not that bad. It advocates rolling back government, discretionary spending, government regulation, enforcing the 10th Amendment, and eliminating regulatory, appointed bodies dominated by the elite class.

If about 80% of policy is budget, its not that bad. Not the least of which is that the document focuses on what people don't like: ObamaCare, interference with Arizona's law, over-regulation, and over-taxing, and promises to roll it back.

The election will be a referendum on Obama. It is the function of the pledge not to screw that up. Not to pick a fight at this time thats not a winning fight.

Ultimately, as the Tea Party dumps RINOS and enforces White Middle Class populism, you will get border enforcement. Indeed, if you want to create higher paying jobs and more jobs and less welfare, kicking out Mexicans and others here illegally is the first step required. That's simple logic. But that's after the election.

Which btw will only take the House, not the Senate, and leave Obama untouched. So its time to be realistic here.

Tanstaafl said...

This will be a fact of life no matter who's in charge. You might as well stop worrying about immigration as there's nothing you can do about it.

Says the person who doesn't want anything done about it.

Genocidal immigrationists don't have any qualms trying to keep everyone worrying about "xenophobia" and "nativism", which are even deeper facts of life that are only exacerbated by open borders.

Wilson said...

"As I've said before, the corporations want the border open, so it will remain open until they want it closed..."

Well once again, the non-business/non-neo wing of the party is showing its naivety.

Simply put, what conservatives need to be asking ourselves in reference to the GOP coalition is: 1) what do we really want?; 2) what do we kinda want?; and 3) what are we against, but willing to concede?

Many, many Republicans want immigration enforcement. They care very little about minimum wages, or business regulation, or tax cuts for the rich that won't affect them. So why do they continue to support tax cuts for the very group that hires millions of illegal immigrants and lobbies incessantly for open borders; that in fact uses the proceeds from their tax cuts to fund their open borders lobbying?

This is why I've changed my mind on the minimum wage. In general I think it's a bad idea. But if businesses don't want the free market to lift wages via supply and demand, I'm willing to have the government do it for them.

It's time for our side of the coalition to open our eyes. 30 years into the Reagan Revolution the wealthy have profited massively from tax cuts while the rest of us have gotten next to nothing, or less than nothing. If the tax cut extension goes through they will get a complete elimination of the 55% tax on large estates. What will we have to show for it? Nada.

Within our coalition we have a handful of bargaining chips. Yet at the beginning of every new set of "negotiations" we essentially hand them over to the business wing without question, because "lower taxes" are an unquestioned good in our worldview, even if those lower taxes don't apply to us.

If it retakes congress the first thing the GOP will do will be to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. Immigration enforcement will be pushed down the road to "another day" - meaning never.

I am done with that sort of GOP. If the Chamber of Commerce crowd wants any more favors they will have to concede something first. I'm waiting.

Anonymous said...

The version I saw also promised to enforce sanctions agains Iran. Americans are really begging for sanctions against Iran. As much as I despise the Democrats, I can't say that I have a higher opinion of Republicans.

asdfasfasdf said...

I've heard of this strategy and that strategy, but for now, I think the best strategy would be pro-success but anti-superwealth.
Most middle Americans are not anti-rich but anti-superrich. They don't hate the restaurant owner making 300,000 a year or doctors earning 400,000 a year. Their beef is not with well-paid computer engineers or small businessmen. Their beef is with CEOS with golden parachutes walking away from their jobs with millions or even tens of millions in compensation. They are pissed with Wall Street and its dirty incestuous and tribal financial capitalism. They are pissed with global capitalism which ships American jobs overseas to nations with cheap labor. As a result, American working class and middle class lose jobs while the superrich capitalist class rakes in ever more dough by exploiting dirt cheap labor they can hire for $5 a day.

Most middle Americans wouldn't even mind the superrich making billions as long as they made it honestly. But is globalism honest? Is it honest for a global company to ship jobs overseas, hire semi-slave labor, and rake in gazillions while the rest of us lose good decent jobs in the US?
Capitalism used to mean something for everyone to most Americans. To the majority of middle Americans today, it means the upper 0.1% raking in most the dough AT THE EXPENSE OF middle America.
Another thing. It was easy for US global capitalism to dominate Middle East, Latin America, and Southeast Asia which are populated mostly by lower IQ peoples, but things are proving to be different with high IQ China and talented India. They are not content to serve indefinitely as secondary partners but to challenge the West as global players. And what awakened these slumbering giants? Global capitalism. So, if one says 'free trade' today, it doesn't mean what it used to mean decades ago. Back then, it used to mean the world buying US products. Or it meant American having access to excellent cars and radio from Japan and Germany. Today, it means the WHOLESALE shipping of US jobs overseas and the rise of China and India.

And guess who the biggest winners of globalism are. China and India? No. The Western global capitalists in the US, the top 0.1%of the population.
And guess how most of these people lean politically? 2/3 of superrich are Democrats, many are Jews.

So, the GOP should change its tune on radical free trade. GOP should be for jobs for middle class, for the successful and rich, but it should be anti-superrich who got rich AT THE EXPENSE OF than FOR THE BENEFIT OF the rest of the country.
GOP should oppose higher taxes for those making 100,000s a year. It should be for moderate tax increases for those making low millions. But for those making tens or 100s or even billions a year, raise it higher and higher. I mean a person making 250,000 a year makes only 200,000 more than someone making 50,000 a year. Why should he be lumped with someone making 100 million a year? It makes no sense. And the superrich are so rich that they seem to want to give their money away through so many charities, mostly leftist. So, we should be for higher taxes on the Gateses, Buffets, Brins, and Oprahs of the world. Limbaugh will bitch but surely the fatboy can do with a few less burgers.

This wouldn't be mindless populism since the new superrich earned much of their money by BETRAYING THIS COUNTRY. They stabbed us in the back, so we owe them nothing. They practiced anti-American capitalism, not pro-American capitalism.

GOP opposing higher taxes on ALL RICH people is stupid. It should oppose raising taxes on the rich but support higher taxes for the superrich.
Besides, since the superrich gave us Obama, make them pay for his freaking policies.

Has to be said...

"It's not a question of whether or not GOP policies will win votes [....]"

Sounds like he is conceding that his MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVER is not winning votes.

Chief Seattle said...

Here in WA our choice for Senator is between Patricia Murray, a pro-H1B, pro illegal immigration democrat and Dino Rossi, a pro-H1B, ostensibly anti-immigration Republican who made his money as a real estate developer. Pretty lousy choice on both sides, as usual.

The only hope is getting the George Bush II republicans out at the primary stage of the election. By the general election the choice is between Coke and Pepsi, only there's a dead mouse in both cans.

Mercer said...

"If about 80% of policy is budget, its not that bad. "

What it says about the budget is a joke. The key phrase is that "seniors, veterans and the troops" should be exempt from any budget discipline. Most of the federal budget is spent on seniors and the military. When most of the budget is off limits from spending restraint and further tax cuts are planned there no way to reduce the long term deficit.

There is one positive thing I noticed. There is no mention of pushing for more trade deals.

Sylvia said...

It is all about a bunch of light-weight GOP stooges* who suffer from a deer-in-the-headlights paralysis when confronted with the societal aftermath induced by 50 years' worth of propagandistic brainwashing from the likes of Stanley Levison, Joe Levin, Morris Dees, David Axelrod, and their legions of up & coming intellectual offspring.

Some guy should start a blog on what it's like to be Jewish in the HBD sphere.

Also, I'm impressed how loyal people here are to Big Business which shipped everything that wasn't nailed down to India.

Anonymous said...

"As long as conservative voters continue to believe the GOP represents their interests, mass immigration will be a fact of life. As will gay marriage and legal abortions. Those are three issues that no elite Republicans really want to see seriously challenged."

Gay marriage and legal abortions however are two issues that won't have enough support to overturn in the near future apart from delaying actions. Mass illegal immigration however, is heavily opposed by the vast majority of voters, across the political spectrum, amongst non-elites. It is also the most urgent issue: if mass immigration, legal and illegal, is allowed to go on at its present rate for another decade or two, even without de jure amnesty it will be a de facto amnesty, and it will be far too late to worry about fixing other issues that conservatives worry about. Time to triage, and fast.

Nanonymous said...

The key to bringing the flow of illegals to a halt is to crack down on employers of illegals.

Yes. Make it it a felony and enforce strictly. Had an illegal nanny? An honest mistake? Didn't know how to check legal status? Ignorantia juris non excusat. Here, two years probation for now. But be aware of three strikes.

When employing illegals is more dangerous than possessing hard drugs, illegals will disappear basically overnight. They are not that profitable to employ.

none of the above said...

Well, the GOP won't do anything to rationalize our immigration laws or get control of our borders, they won't stop handing incredible sums of money to politically-connected companies on request (but it might be somewhat different companies--more Haliburton, less GM), they won't reduce the deficit or the size or reach of government, they certainly won't do anything sensible about the schools. Instead, they will assuage social conservatives by being *really concerned* about the Ground Zero Mosque, and by promising to keep opposing abortion and gay marriage and the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Fred Reed likes to point out that we have this weird approximation of democracy, in which we're allowed to vote, but very little ever changes. This is part of how that works.

none of the above said...

The parties are more-or-less brands, with slogans as important and honest as "You're in Good Hands" or "Beyond Petroleum" or "Better Living Through Chemistry" or "Less Filling. Tastes Great."

You would be a fool to judge Allstate insurance or Ford by taking their slogan literally. ("Hey, they say quality is job one, so I guess I can just trust them, right?") Instead, you judge them by their actions. There are some nice organizations that will help you figure out what their actions have been, what is known and knowable about their future plans, etc. You want to know if your insurance company will pay valid claims, and if they're likely to go broke if a hurricane or earthquake hits, not whether they say you'll be in good hands.

Somehow, almost nobody thinks of political parties that way. Instead, you still see otherwise smart people arguing, even today, from the assumption that the Republicans are the party of small government or balanced budgets, or the Democrats are the party of civil liberties or meaningful regulation of industry. Decades of contrary experience and evidence somehow don't kill these slogans, which are built from some combination of groupthink and wishful thinking. Political reporting that does Consumer Reports style factual detail and history coverage (think Congressional Quarterly) is *boring*--what's fun is a staged 24 minute debate between two screaming mouthpieces for the parties.

Probably because each vote counts so little, hardly anyone researches their vote the way they research a car or house purchase. And so we keep getting the government we deserve.

Wilson said...

"No, the states do not currently have that right. I'd assume that most readers here have heard of the storm surrounding Arizona's attempts to exercise that right." - Severn

Well read the relevant paragraphs. The document itself uses the term "reaffirm." That is all they are doing. States already had the right to help enforce immigration laws under 287(g). State and local immigration enforcement could be enormously effective, if it were embraced. But most states and cities aren't embracing it, so "reaffirming" their right to do so does little.

What else does it say? Give Border Patrol agents access to federally-owned lands, and that's about it. No interior enforcement. No increased fines on businesses. No increased funding for ICE. No requiring states to bar benefits to illegals. No reinterpretation of birthright citizenship (a right granted in only 30 of 194 countries). No sending the National Guard to the borders. Nothing.

"I've read it. Its not that bad. It advocates rolling back government, discretionary spending, government regulation, enforcing the 10th Amendment, and eliminating regulatory, appointed bodies dominated by the elite class."

In other words: eliminating everything the Chamber of Commerce wants eliminated, and doing nothing that they oppose.

"Which btw will only take the House, not the Senate, and leave Obama untouched. So its time to be realistic here."

No, documents like these are the time to be idealistic. "This is what we'll try to do if you give us enough power. We'll let Obama and the Dems take the blame for stopping us."

"Sounds like he is conceding that his MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVER is not winning votes."

I think on net it does win votes. It still won't put a guy like J.D. Hayworth over the top (what would?), but it will lift a Mike Lee past a Bob Bennett and Tim Bridgewater, a Jason Chaffetz over a Chris Cannon, and a Ken Buck over a Jane Norton. I concede that, like most every issue, it's a minority one that will only swing a certain number of votes - 10% or so.

Is anyone in favor of amnesty/guestworkers running expensive commercials advertising the fact?

My point is that whether or not enforcement wins votes in any given election, open borders will ultimately lose votes for the GOP because it will hurt the American people.

Mr. Anon said...

"Whiskey said...

I've read it. Its not that bad. It advocates rolling back government, discretionary spending, government regulation, enforcing the 10th Amendment, and eliminating regulatory, appointed bodies dominated by the elite class."

Yeah, it wasn't a bad platform when Ronald Reagan ran on it in the 1980s. But today, it sounds a bit hollow. The Department of Education still exists today and is as ineradicable as kudzu. The Republicans didn't deliver then, and they won't now - not for us.

And by the way, the federal government can not enforce the 10th amendment - that would be like a stalker promising to enforce the right of his victim to remain unmolested. The 10th amendment is a limitation on the federal government, and ultimately the only entities which can enforce it are the states and the people.

I have heard that the pledge includes something about securing the border - sounds like another multi-billion dollar contract for Boeing or LockMart to build an "electronic fence".

This pledge leaves me unimpresssed. The only way I would trust the republican party would be if almost thier entire bench were replaced, and replaced with people who are NOT endorsed by Fox News, the National Review, and the Heritage Foundation.

Wilson said...

I want to reiterate a point I made earlier, because I think it's extremely important relative to immigration enforcement.

The GOP is pushing to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, including the complete elimination of the estate tax. This is a huge handout to business interests - the same interests that lobby for open borders.

It is time, if we are at all serious about immigration enforcement, eliminating racial preferences, etc., to realize that we cannot keep giving the business wing what they want before we get anything in exchange. It is time to demand that the Republicans put our issues first. If we don't then all we're doing here at iSteve, VDare, and anywhere else is just shouting at a wall.

Hold off on extending the Bush tax cuts and other so-called "pro-business policies" until we get border security, smaller government, and the elimination of affirmative action.

And if we don't get these? Well then I guess the Chamber of Commerce will have to wait, too.

Laban said...

Capitalism used to mean something for everyone to most Americans. To the majority of middle Americans today, it means the upper 0.1% raking in most the dough AT THE EXPENSE OF middle America.

It's worth looking at this PDF on US and Japanese household debt, from the Bank of International Settlements. Look at Graph 5 - household net worth by income quintile.

Bottom 20% of Japanese households - 13% of the net worth

Bottom 20% of US households - 1% of the net worth

next 20% of Japanese households - 16% of the net worth

next 20% of US households - 6% of the net worth

Top 20% of Japanese households - 34% of the net worth

Top 20% of US households - 64% of the net worth

What could be the difference between the US and Japan, I wonder?

Anonymous said...

I would trust the republican party would be if almost thier entire bench were replaced, and replaced with people who are NOT endorsed by Fox News, the National Review, and the Heritage Foundation.

There's a fellow named Robert Rector at Heritage who did ground-breaking work on the subjects in which we here at iSteve are most interested:


The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer
April 4, 2007
by Robert Rector, Christine Kim and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D.
heritage.org
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ...A household’s net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. If the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services alone are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $22,449 (expenditures of $32,138 minus $9,689 in taxes)...

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer
by Robert Rector and Christine Kim
May 21, 2007
heritage.org
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ...A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes)....


He may have been single-handedly* responsible for stopping the Bush/McCain amnesty drive in the spring of 2007.



*Or at least he & Christine Kim.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

There's a fellow named Robert Rector at Heritage who did ground-breaking work on the subjects in which we here at iSteve are most interested:"

Thanks for pointing that out. I may have confused heritage with one of the other influential republican think-tanks.

Jehu said...

Wilson,
I'll go one further. The Republican party won't see one dime or one vote from me, and they'll continue to lose all the votes I can convince as well, until they do one thing.
Start working AGAINST the loss of the demographic hegemony of me and mine and stop working FOR it. If Operation Wetback II is off the table, so is my support.

TGGP said...

"It merely advocates (buried way down on page 20) to reaffirm the right of states to enforce immigration laws - a right they already have."
Could be worse. Though of course it's all rhetorical and doesn't matter anyway.

Felix, just because others are also guilty does not make corporations innocent.

David said...

We've heard it all before.

Nixon's "silent majority." Screwed by Affirmative Action and Wage/Price Controls.

Reagan's small-government enthusiasts. Screwed by the creation of Dept. of Education, massive military spending, etc.

Bush I's "read my lips: no new taxes." Screwed by, well, new taxes.

Gingrich's "Contract with America" voters. Screwed. Was Social Security privatized, for example? Were a good number of government departments abolished? BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Bush II's conservative believers. Screwed by his invade the world/invite the world/in hock to the world policies (hat tip: Sailer).

Hell, even Bill C. gassed about "The End of the era of big government."

They're all yanking our chain.

There is only ONE political party in America: the pro-government party. Like a poor man's Baskin-Robbins, this party has but two flavors: a right-wing flavor and a left-wing flavor. You can be for Punch or for Judy. But both have the same guy's hands up their...

AmericanGoy said...

Haha, and the brainless Americans will vote the far right wing in, to replace the moderate right wing currently in power.

And the Republican's are strongly against the terrible, socialist yet interestingly pro health insurance and pro big pharma Obama plan.

They are blasting it in the media.

And they have a plan - their own, much better reform plan.

... Which is the same, almost word for word, as Obama's plan.


I don't think anyone is surprised, as the same lobbyists wrote the lot of them...