Illegal Immigration: A GOP Issue that Works?

Nancy Pelosi, put away that tape measure! That seems to be the conventional wisdom the day after a key congressional election in San Diego. And it may even be correct--that is, Pelosi should not assume she will be picking out new curtains for the House Speaker's office following this fall's elections. In felonious Duke Cunningham's district, another Republican, former Representative Brian Bilbray, was able to hold the seat for the GOP, beating back the Democrat 49 to 45 percent. If the Ds cannot pick up a seat when an R is nabbed on bribery charges and tossed into prison, that's a sign that the "culture of corruption" charge (see Jack Abramoff) they are campaigning upon may not do the trick in November. (Representative William Jefferson, a Democrat accused of taking $100,000 bribe, is sure not helping on this front.) Cunningham's district was a Republican area. But to regain the House, the Dems need to do well in heretofore GOP districts.

Without reading too much into the results of one race, there is good reason for Democrats to worry: illegal immigration. Bilbray hyped his support for tough border enforcement, siding with the House Republicans' keep-'em-out/toss-'em-out approach and attacking the Bush-favored Senate compromise position that blends a (convoluted) path-to-citizenship with steps to beef up the border. And that might have won him the race. During the campaign, Bilbray called for building a fence "from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico." Celebrating his victory, Bilbray said, "The president proposing amnesty was absolutely a big problem. In fact, it wasn't until I was able to highlight the fact that I did not agree with my friends in the Senate or my friend in the White House on amnesty that you really saw the polls start supporting me strongly."

Now nervous-Nelly Republicans have a test-case to apply to their own races. If it's a good fit for the district, Republican candidates will surely sound the illegal immigrant alarm to drive base-voters to the voting booth. Many were probably planning to do this already. Bilbray is proof it works.

When Latinos were out in the streets weeks ago to protest the House Republicans' harsh immigration bill, there was talk among commentators about the rising political clout of Hispanic-American voters. But rallies do not make voting patterns. And that clout may not arrive quick enough to help Democrats in five months. Historically, it takes a long time for new voting blocs to vote. Over the years, the greatest predictor of whether someone will vote in an election has been whether they voted in the previous one. Even if Americans of Latin American origin are enraged by conservative Republicans, that anger may not register at the polls (particularly in an off-year election) for some time.

On the other mano, conservative voters pissed off about the trumped-up crisis of illegal immigration are already accustomed to expressing their outrage on election day. It may well be that it is not to the GOP's advantage to make illegal immigration a national issue in the election. (The Wall-only approach divides the party, puts off business supporters, and might alienate moderate voters.) But in many a district, bashing illegal immigrants will serve the party well. In these spots, if the choice of targets for voter are either a corrupt party controlling Congress or illegal immigrants sneaking into America to steal jobs, commit crimes, alter the culture, and perhaps engage in terrorist acts, guess who wins.

This week, Senate Republicans tried to play the gay-marriage card--and they failed to defeat a Democrat-led filibuster. But they did throw a chewed-up bone to their social conservative supporters. Congressional Republicans also intend to wave the flag-burning issue soon. It's possible these hot-button wedge issues don't juice up Republican-leaning voters as much as they used to. But illegal immigrants may trump gays and flag-burners as Enemy No. 1 for the GOPers this year. In some districts--maybe critical districts--Jack Abramoff will be no match for that.

Comments (55)

1. The bigger point in my opinion is the the dems have no message to bring to the voters. No message except anti Bush is not a winner.....anywhere.

   Posted by john maasch at 06/07/2006 @ 3:08pm

2. Some DO have a message Maasch. Conservatives slap the anti-Buish label on it - not the candidates.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2006 @ 3:15pm

3. Hman,

   What is the message of the dems nationaly if it is not anti Bush all the time?

   What are they offering? I am aware of "get out of Iraq, we never should have gone " crowd, but I am unaware of their replacement policy or idea if we actually did that?...

   or another example...

   what is their immigration policy besides treating them(illegals) as another victum of the evil white USA crowd as they have done with the african americans...voting blockwise?

   Posted by john maasch at 06/07/2006 @ 3:31pm

4. Maasch - why don't you go on some of the candidate's websites and judge for yourselves whether or not they have a message (even if you do not agree with it).

   Or go to Francine Busby [busbyforcongress.com] for a look at the Democrat in question.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2006 @ 3:48pm

5. I did a seach for "Bush."

   No hits.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2006 @ 3:49pm

6. The blame-the-immigrants crowd will win as long as they don't have to debate it. If they do, any idiot could expose the fraud. The economics, the foreign policy, the morality, the use of police and military resources, the state vs. federal issues - none of it works.

   So stand by for a lot of sound bites, and very little else.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 06/07/2006 @ 3:52pm

7. .

   For Once Corn is Right

   Brian Bilbray's ability to retain the 50th CD for the Republicans is an eye opener. And I agree with Maasch, the Democrats have no message.

   Corn is also right about immigration. It is a potent issue. The tape showing those 400,000 Latinos demanding open borders for their brothers and sisters is going to win the election for many a congressperson. It is not only an emotional issue, it is a vital issue of great consequence for this country. It can be defended.

   .

   Posted by nacl at 06/07/2006 @ 4:13pm

8. So, what is the GOP's message?

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2006 @ 4:23pm

9. What are the great legislative accomplishments of the current GOP Congress that are part of the GOP message?

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2006 @ 4:27pm

10. Gee, it's almost as if 1) they have no freaking idea what to do 2) they really want the Republicans to keep getting re-elected until they actually have to clean up the messes they've made 3) they'd just love to have all that power with no accountablilty foer themselves.

    4) all of the above ...

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/07/2006 @ 4:53pm

11. Zero, sometimes your nihilism is right on.but one swallow does not a summer make.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 5:11pm

12. One has to laugh. The blame the GOP stuff here is great. For, it was Lou Dobbs of the Clinton News Network that brought this issue to the for-front. The dem media did it to the dem politicians. that reality is good for a laugh!

    Posted by koza44 at 06/07/2006 @ 6:05pm

13. Clinton? what are you inna time warp, Koz

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 6:11pm

14. ZERO:

    The fall of the Democrats as a viable alternative to the crypto-fascist mongoloid theocratic/corporate fascist neo-Liberal imperialist combine (or in the words of GWAR, two great hates that hate great together) is due in most part (but not wholly) to two major shifts in our country. One is a direct fault of the Democrats themselves, the other is a direct result of the deregulation movement (also arguably the fault of the Democrats).

    First, the Democrates have forgotten that they won elections when they actually represented (at least nominally) the little guy. When they started trying to compete with the Republicans in terms of garnering political contributions from corporate America (thereby compromising their tenuous hold on the claim of being representative of the working man), they had to move their agenda to the right to coincide with the strings which were attached to those affore mentioned political contributions.

    The second is the consolidation of media outlets into the hands of a small coterie of international corporations, and the concomitant destruction of the fairness doctrine. Before that, media outlets had to at least pay lip service to being truly "fair and balanced".

    As much as I hate to admit it, NACL and MAASCH have apoint, although not for the reasons they believe. The Democrats will not regain any permanent traction with the electorate until it is somewhat clear to the people who are so disillusioned with the process that they opt out of the process on principle (which is MOST middle and lower class people, to be honest) that they will be truly represented, instead of being sold out by Republicans in Democrats' clothing, e.g. Bill Clinton. Hence, even if I liked the Democrats (which I don't, in general), I would not be overly hopeful about this fall. They simply are seen as Republicans-lite.

    Posted by jorcheim at 06/07/2006 @ 7:55pm

15. afore-mentioned*

    Sorry, I was in a hurry.

    Posted by jorcheim at 06/07/2006 @ 7:57pm

16. Zero, my dictionary defines nihilism as "extreme skepticism" which I think pertains to you. you may disagree.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 9:57pm

17. I don't disagree with your points, Zero.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 9:57pm

18. I think the next presidency is lying there, for someone to pick up. I don't believe it will be anyone who voted FOR the war. it may be someone who is not on the national stage yet. One didn't hear much about Clinton two and a half years before the election.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 10:00pm

19. I smell a cunning plan....more cunning than the fox what became Professor of Cunning and Head of the Cunning Department at Oxford (to quote Blackadder).

    The Repubs only need worry about the House this time...worst case scenario in the Senate puts them at 50-50 with Cheney casting tie votes (and they got Bush's tax cuts through with that in 2001).

    So, how do they hold the House with a "culture of corruption" scandal?...simple....CULTURE. "American culture" to be more precise, and an issue that wins them both Republicans and blue-collar Democrats--illegal immigration.

    Nothing easier than saying "Them Mexs are stealing your jobs, and the durn liberal Democrats want an open border for more of them and then force YOUR kids to learn Spanish....We're fighting to lock down the border, while they want amnesty, including some lib Repubs in the Senate...We can stop them". Throw in the image of Achmed al-Alstani ibn Muhammed sneaking into Tampico on a freighter and joining a van full of guys crossing at El Paso...and you got your issue.

    Dems can't counter it because they can't piss off the Latino vote...and their own natural instinct to "be nice to poor people".

    And Bilbray gives us the pattern for what happens in 5 months.

    Posted by Mask at 06/07/2006 @ 10:46pm

20. HEY ZERO: "Given that hatred of undocumented immigrants is the defining political force in Cunningham's former district, it is unlikely I believe that the district is a bellwether for the Congressional season coming up. This is because most districts don't manifest as their strongest issues hatred of undocumented immigrants or xenophobia."

    You must be from some liberal enclave, say in the Northeast, because guess what: the illegal immigration issue plays almost EVERYWHERE outside of liberal land (enclaves), because it touches on race (e.g loss of white majority, competition for white women, etc.) and income (competition for jobs). RACE IS A MAJOR FACTOR. If Democrats ignore this reality, then they're whistling past the graveyard. Decline of workers' pay and decline of white population cuts like a knife, and completly blows away all other issues. Race is and has been the GOP's trump card for a long time. What's fascinating, is how the immigration issue brings out into stark relief the contradiction between the capitalistic interests of the elites who back the GOP (i.e. profits at ANY cost) and the racial pandering by the right to win the votes of white workers. Presently the GOP is performing a delicate dance to make sure they look tough on immigration, i.e tough on colored people, making sure that the white workers they're looking tough to, don't connect the dots and realize that "profits-at-any-cost" and uncontrolled immigration go hand-in-hand.

    Given the extent to which the wealthy interests (who own the politicians and the media, and want all the cheap labor they can get), run our country, I think they will enable the GOP pull this off. The whole team will work together on this one.

    Posted by wgilwood at 06/07/2006 @ 11:14pm

21. MASK IS RIGHT. The GOP is going to play the race card. Keep in mind that the terrorism issue is also largely a race issue, just like immigration. After all the "terrorists" are nonwhites, so in the mind of the average redneck both issues merge into one, i.e non-whites (redskins) are out to steal from us and destroy us. Manipulation of tribal insticts almost always works, because how many people really understand the issues? Less than 2%?

    Posted by wgilwood at 06/07/2006 @ 11:27pm

22. I had some produce today, and I was thinking, you see, Liberals wanted to have food that was environmental, so we came up with Organic food. Organic has become successful beyond anyones expectaions. Why cant Conservatives come up with a label such as Legal food, grown only by documented workers?

    Theres Free Trade coffee, theres no such thing as Legally Grown lettuce, theres no legally grown barley malt.

    I understand that all of the Conservative posters here on this message board are self-made millionaires - since they all got big tax cuts as promised by George Bush - since youre so rich and you dont hire illegals - what do you think?

    Contains 100% Certified Legal ingredients: grown entirely by documented American workers.

    Posted by conshame at 06/07/2006 @ 11:28pm

23. Iraq is defintely an important issue, which is why the GOP is DESPARATE to DISTRACT from it. And what more potent distraction is there than the latest flavor of the race issue, which right now is immigration. Also, Iraq is a NATIONAL issue. How many voters look at the midterms races in the context of national issues?

    Posted by wgilwood at 06/07/2006 @ 11:41pm

24. Since the GOP is using the race issue as distraction and Bubba bait, then the Democrats must work to NEUTRALIZE that strategy. A major question is: how do you do that when the wealthy backers of the GOP own most of the media?

    Posted by wgilwood at 06/07/2006 @ 11:45pm

25. If you want to deal effectively with people (in this case the GOP leadership or the Suckers that support them) then you have to understand how they think, which means you have to be able to think like them. You have to be able to think like the Devil without becoming him. This is part of the genius of GWBush & Co. -- they know how to think like Bubba and so can effectively manipulate him.

    Posted by wgilwood at 06/07/2006 @ 11:56pm

26. Illegal immigraton wasn't a problem before the GOP took over the congress

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 01:25am

27. " Liberals wanted to have food that was environmental, so we came up with Organic food"

    My grandfathers grew their own veggies organically for years and voted conservative all their lives..guess you are wrong about liberals, veggies and politics...and conservatives...:)

    Posted by john maasch at 06/08/2006 @ 02:27am

28. All

    ZARAQAWI IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ZARAQAWI IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ZARAQAWI IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    GOD BLESS US FORCES THAT KILLED THIS SLIME

    GOD BLESS BUSH!!!

    GOD BLESS THE IRAQIS!!!!

    AND GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!!!!

    WE DIDNT WAVER, WE DIDNT FALTER!!!!!!!

    ITS NOT END, ITS NOT EVEN THE BEGINING OF THE END, BUT IT MAY VERY WELL BE THE END OF THE BEGINING.

    Posted by CPT at 06/08/2006 @ 08:36am

29. Maasch, you are still living in your grandfather's world, with his world view to match.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 08:37am

30. CPT you said it, man. Bye bye to that sorry ass MF and his butcher knife. Maybe Nick Berg's family can have a good day for once.

    I remain an extreme skeptic on the overall operation. But I love it when we blow up somebody who really deserves it.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/08/2006 @ 09:02am

31. My grandfathers grew their own veggies organically for years and voted conservative all their lives..guess you are wrong about liberals, veggies and politics...and conservatives...:)

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/08/2006 @ 02:27am

    Maasch

    everybody's grand father farmed organically

    of course back then they just called it farming

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 09:36am

32. Good riddance to Zarqawi. This piece of good news could not have come at a better time for Bush. We will certainly hear that we have reached another "turning point" (number 4 or 5).

    Now I can play MASK, and say BUT:

    1. Good PR for Bush and the pro-war crowd in the near-term ... diverts attention from Haditha ... however, Zarqawi's death would have played BETTER for the GOP in October than in June ... if there is no decrease in the number of insurgency attacks through the summer (ala a Tet Offensive) and no real progress, you'll hear "how significant REALLY was his death?" ... and the hard fact that nothing has improved plays into the "Iraq is a Quagmire" which ends up HURTING the GOP come November ... SO

    2. Bush better find a new Boogeyman ... QUICKLY.

    3. The major coverage of this sort of undermines the theory of "the MSM never reports the GOOD things that are happening in Iraq."

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 10:40am

33. Posted by HMAN23 06/08/2006 @ 10:40am | ignore this person

    Sorry, HMAN...."I" do it so much better....hehe.

    Actually the timing was perfect (if you want to go RESE/PLUNGER), it knocked Haditha off the radar screen just as it was becoming the Talk of the Week.

    Posted by Mask at 06/08/2006 @ 10:54am

34. I've got MAASCH on my ignore list (along with all the other pseudo conservative radical nutjob freepers who post on this site), but in response to Will's response to MAASCH, I'm 59 years old, so that puts my grandfather's age in perspective. He raised all his own vegetables too, but it most certainly was NOT organic. He grew up next to the land that subsequently became Rodale's organic farm and was highly critical of Rodale's refusal to use pesticides. He believed Rodale was a complete nut, and my grandfather used whatever pesticides and herbicides he thought were necessary to kill bugs and weeds. The 1940s and 50s were notorious for excessive use of really bad chemicals on even home gardens. Oh, yeah, and my grandfather was definitely a conservative "my country right or wrong and long haired hippies are the bane of my existence" kind of guy.

    I garden exclusively organically, as do my "liberal" and "progressive" friends, while my "conservative" friends (yes, I do have some of those with whom I generally agree to disagree) tend to use chemicals, especially when their gardens are threatened by slugs or other garden pests.

    Sorry this is so off the subject.

    On the subject: Zero, I always enjoy your posts. I totally agree with your assessment of the Democrats. What a bunch of losers for the most part! No principles, no committments to their base, no real vision. They are also in thrall to big business interests, which explains some of it. It's been said (I think by Truman, although I'm not sure) that when a real Republican runs against a fake Republican, the real one always wins. Dems take note! It might be nice to hear some of our Democratic representatives expound upon the notion that immigration is a red herring, as are gay marriage, English as the national language, and a host of other wedge issues. And to really emphasize that corporate policies, illegal HIRING of immigrants, outsourcing, NAFTA and other special interests are the real problem for working people. But then it was a Democrat, Clinton, who oversaw the implemention of NAFTA. Republican lite for sure.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 06/08/2006 @ 10:59am

35. Yes, Mask, which I agreed to, BUT we are are still 5 months from the elections; if things do not significantly improve by November and we see 600+ attacks a month through to the fall, wouldn't you have to say the the timing would have been MORE perfect if it was October 15?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 11:09am

36. Haditha is not going away. Zarkawi's successor is sharpening his knives as we speak. I'll trade you one beheading for one Iraqi baby shot in the forehead.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 11:46am

37. Zero, I did not write the dictionary, I just quote it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 11:54am

38. With regard to the "formulate a message" or the "get the message out" crowd, thats really the problem, isnt it? You might disagree with rebublican policies, but they dont have to go looking for "messages" to get out, nor do they have to "temper" theirs for public consumption.

    For the "formulate" bunch, voting Americans arent looking for a new discovery here, as in a new message, or a magical new issue to heat people up - they are looking for a representative with shared values - which means there have to be values in the first place. I dont say that to be mean or hurtful - I just mean that dems are all over the map here. America has spoken - several times - Dem leadership does not mirror where America is with regard to morals, defense, taxes, or education.

    With regard to the "get the message out" crew, America has heard the message - and voted for the other guy.

    I think dems would be well served to govern in alignment with American values - then they will be rewarded with leadership roles.

    Finally, Mr. Corn's article seemed to have many very valid points about the issue, except when he used the term "...trumped-up illegal immigration..." That is very telling in that it appears liberal writer, and I suspect they political demo friends still do not get how deeply serious average Americans feel about this issue. It is not "trumped-up". It is real!

    Respectfully

    Posted by aintaliberal at 06/08/2006 @ 1:43pm

39. america is still speaking, in approval ratings, and the Tories are scared shitless

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:14pm

40. Wow, David got it right for once. Yes, it is illegal immigration, stupid! In fact, the reason that Bush's positive ratings are so low is because of his misguided, liberal solutions to this important issue. In particular, the majority of Americans are against any type of "Amnesty" especially the conservative base. Even the majority of moderate democrats are against giving illegal immigrants a free ride to citizenship. This issue is a huge winner for those politicians who take a strong stance against illegal immigration AND support building a wall first. This isn't racism, it's just common sense. Anybody that can not see that illegal immigration (not legal immigration) is damaging our country has their heads in the sand.

    The other losing positions that the dems are taking are;

    1. NSA wire tapping-Of course the average American supports this approach.

    2. Energy policy- The dems don't have an energy policy, except to complain about our dependence on Arab oil and how the evil oil companies are ripping us off. Dems are against drilling for oil anywhere in and around the U.S. Dems are against nuclear power. Dems are against building any refineries. Dems are against coal. The only viable alternative that Dems are supportive of is wind-power. That is except when it's in Edward Kennedy's backyard. America needs solutions to our problems, not just complaints. I have yet to hear of a viable, short term solution to our energy problems from them.

    3.Repeal of the Death Tax- This tax hurts the small family business much more than it does the super wealthy. The super wealthy don't care nearly as much as the child who inherits the small family business and needs to keep it a going concern. These unfair taxes destroy that possibility in many instances. It's called economics 101.

    I could keep going on but what's the point. Most Liberals are living in a fantasy land either teaching, working for a Union that has no understanding of running a business or unemployed.

    Posted by silk at 06/08/2006 @ 2:39pm

41. Silk, you are misinformed. #1. wrong, it depends on how the question is asked

    2. Tories and even the pres complain about our dependence. Tories in congress believe oil co's are ripping us off and have said so. wheryabeen? that no refineries have been built is all up to the oil companies, and I doubt they are dems.

    3. that is a lie and has been repeatedly exposed as such. whereyabeen?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:44pm

42. let me substitute fallacy for lie, they know not what they say.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:45pm

43. Rolfy- Oil companies would love to build additional refineries in the U.S. but the lefties like you will not let them build one due to the hurdles that are put in their way. There's always some 3-toed frog that needs to be put on the endangered list right where the oil company wants to build a refinery.

    Regarding the oil companies "ripping us off"; there have been numerous committees that look into these accussations every day and they all come to the same conclusion. NOT GUILTY. Obviously you don't own a business because if you did you would realize that a 9% net profit is extemely reasonable and thats tha maximum that the big oil companies are making.

    Posted by silk at 06/08/2006 @ 4:24pm

44. I repectfully reply to Mr. JOHANNESROLF

    1. With regard to approval ratings - I presume you speak of Mr. Bush's ratings - press reports indicate that Congress is LOWER!

    2. The approval ratings reflect conservative dissatisfaction with slow judge appointments, runaway spending, lack of progress (elimination) of death taxes, and failure to secure our borders and deal with illegal immigrants. Hardly fertile ground for liberals. Dissatisfaction with Bush cannot be interpreted as a call for higher taxes, more government spending and regulations., and looser borders.

    3. With regard to oil companies reticense to build new refineries, this is not up to oil companies - is it because of burdensome environmental regulations. Companies build things to make money. It is too costly to build, due to regulations, so they dont do it. However, as with so many other so-called envirnmental regulations , the unintended consequensces (keeping old, dirty, inefficient refineries) are more damaging that the problems they meant to correct. Again, not really fertile ground for liberals to lift such regulations, now is it?

    Respectfully

    Posted by aintaliberal at 06/08/2006 @ 4:27pm

45. the oil companies are not building refineries because they chose not to, for good commercial reason. I mean, they own the congress, can get anything passed they choose, they own Cheney and Bush too. no, they don't build them because it is advantageous for them not to.

    Silk you came with the oilco's are ripping us off riff, don't lay it at my feet. both of your posts come under rubrik of erecting a straw man and then knocking it down

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 4:40pm

46. the dump in appro ratings is due to the war, the war, and the war.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 4:41pm

47. A respectful reply to Mr. Johannesrolf,

    1. You really need to research the reasons why a single refinery has not been built in over 30 years. It is for the very reasons that AINTALIBERAL states in his previous post.

    2.The reason why Bush's ratings are so low are multifaceted. I suggest it is because of the many liberal actions that he has supported while in office. These policies have alienated his base. These policies include the presciption drug program for seniors, the out of control spending, the ports debacle, the Meyers nomination and lastly his immigration stance.

    Those are the reasons for his poor approval ratings, not just the "war on terror" which his base fully supports!

    Posted by silk at 06/08/2006 @ 5:17pm

48. Silk, show me some facts and I'll believe you. 30 years, the environmental movement has not been strong for 30 years. my point remains, the oil companies own Bush, they own Cheney, they own the congress. and they are making huge amounts of money. the oil companies don't even claim this.

    Bush's troubles are many, his incompetence and venality are varied, the sooner we see the back of him the better. evidently much a america agrees with me on this.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 6:31pm

49. the war on terror is fiction, the war in Iraq is nonfiction.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 6:32pm

50. To JOHANNESROLF

    As an hyperventilating anti-Bushie, you have no basis to comment on why Bush supporters (in general) are dissatisfied with his performance. You hate him, but in the end, you voice is only one. Bush supporters support the war and the troops. Bush supporters are unhappy with him because he is too liberal. I am a Bush support who is giving him a low approval rating. Nt for the war or the economy, but for immigration.

    Posted by aintaliberal at 06/09/2006 @ 11:27am

51. As an hyperventilating anti-Bushie, you have no basis to comment on why Bush supporters (in general) are dissatisfied with his performance.

    I did not postulate this, you are putting words in my mouth. you don't seem to have any problem speaking for a whole group of people.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:27pm

52. america is still speaking, in approval ratings, and the Tories are scared shitless

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/08/2006

    the dump in appro ratings is due to the war, the war, and the war.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/08/2006

    Mr. Johhanesrolf

    These are your words, not mine. By the way, whats a Tori? Is that like a redcoat?

    You are wrong. The dump in approval ratings is not due to the war. We have had war since 9/11.

    I submit that you can only comment on why approval ratings are low among Bush haters. You cannot possibly know why his ratings are low among his supporters.

    I am not scared, because I will vote next time for a candidate who is more conservative than Bush. In addition, conservatives are not dissatisfied with the war, as you state. Again, your words, not mine.

    We may have another democratic president in my lifetime (then again, we may not). However, we will never have another liberal president.

    Posted by aintaliberal at 06/12/2006 @ 1:46pm

53. Appears to me that the conventional wisdom places too much emphasis on illegal immigration as an issue in the San Diego race. For one thing, Diego is a Navy town & across the country in Navy & military towns such as San Antonio, Colorado Springs, Grand Forks & Leavenworth a conventional Liberal Democrat of the ilk of Ms. Busby doesn't have a prayer. By a wide margin those in & retired from the armed forces are conservative voters. For instance, in the election of '04 veterans voted for Bush over Kerry by 6 to 4. Actually, Yours truly, a veteran of more than 22 months of fighting in Viet-Nam perhaps close to typical of G.I.s & former G.I.s in attitude, more voted against Gore in '00 & against Kerry in '04 than for Bush. I was astounded that Kerry received as much of the G.I. & veteran vote that he did in '04, as despised as he is by the majority of veterans, particularly Viet-Nam veterans.

    Posted by Sinoe River at 06/12/2006 @ 1:53pm

54. "The dump in approval ratings is not due to the war."

    say what? open your eyes, read something and then stop this nonsense.

    I use the word Tory for the repugs. I could use Whig. it's just shorthand for reactionaries.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2006 @ 5:24pm

55. Aint, you are so illinformed, it is hardly worth answering. the polls are quite specific of why Bush is disliked by the different groups.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2006 @ 5:26pm