« Who are the "real" terrorists? | Main | Signs of progress in Islam »

The Base

Well, it's happening again. The haters are out in full force, doing everything they can to accomplish their goals by screaming at everyone else and pretending that they alone know the truth. The odd thing these days, is that these irrational malcontents also like to claim that they represent the majority. We see this in groups like the "Truthers", who made up a bunch of conspiracy theories about 9/11 in order to feel important, but they simultaneously claim an exclusive knowledge of "the truth", yet at the same time claim that they represent most of the nation in spirit. We see this, among Conservatives, in those spittle-flecked individuals who cannot stand the President the nation twice elected, or their party members in Congress, to such a degree that many among them openly suggest that abandoning the party and leaving the fate of the nation in the hands of the likes of Pelosi and Reid, of Murtha and Byrd, somehow is desirable. It's the political version of the insane man who kills his wife to prove he loves her. And yet, these guys not only believe that doing everything they can to spite their own party is somehow noble, they also claim to represent the nation as a whole. They claim that they are "the base", and routinely assure us that no candidate can win without their support. Utter dreck, but it's a common meme.

To show how false this premise is, I first refer the reader to President Bush's Job Approval numbers. Yes, the same numbers the screaming meanies point to in their claim that Bush is failing. President Bush is sitting at 32% Approval, according to a composite of the major opinion polls. He's been there for several months now. Granted, in terms of effective support this is not promising, as it means that whether or not he is actually doing a good job, the overall impression in the media and in the public is that he is ineffective. Yet, it must be observed that for all the noise made about Bush's numbers, he has - consistently - scored higher than the public's opinion of Congress. No matter whether we are talking about the Republican-led Congress or the Democrat-led Congress, President Bush is more respected than Congress in terms of his job performance. That context is very important. But it also needs to be noted, that Bush's 32% is a hard number. Except for those polls which heavily over-sample Democrats and Bookend states like Nyawk and Calforn, Bush never goes below that 32% level; it's a floor, the foundation number. In practical terms, yes, it means that Bush has no standing with Democrats or Independents, and it means that his political capital is poor. Given that he is in the last two years of his Administration, that he was deserted by his party on most major issues during 2005 and 2006, and that the extremists in the GOP gave away the keys to Congress in 2006, that is hardly surprising. But it also means that there is a core level of support for President Bush, a foundation of voters who like how he has done his job and will not look kindly on those who think they can get ahead by trashing the President or his work. It doesn't mean they agree with Dubya on every issue, but rather that they support him and what he stands for. In 2004, with a 50% Approval Rating, President Bush won re-election with 62 million votes, and that was 51% of the Popular Vote. Using simple math, Bush's 32% Approval Rating now translates to 39.7 million voters who would still support him, and represents 32.6 percent of the Popular Vote. Anyone who chooses to attack President Bush as part of an election campaign therefore, gives away 32.6 percent of the Popular Vote, or just about three-fifths of the Republican vote.

Let me be clear that I am not saying we need a Bush clone in 2008. Even I found Alberto Gonzalez a disappointment as AG, and I think the present Immigration Reform bill is a poor piece of work, though those people who insist on calling it things like "amnesty" only show they are not willing to seriously discuss the issue as adults. In any case, it is quite reasonable for someone to disagree with the President on certain issues, yet keep his overall work in mind and to use a mature perspective in weighing the matter. Also, each election calls for a candidate whose abilities and character suit the moment. And many voters who voted for Bush in 2004 will support the GOP candidate, no matter who it is, since the Democrats' choice will doubtless be execrable. But I will say plainly, that because they have chosen to personally savage the President, to abandon the GOP when their support would have made a difference, and to put their egos and image ahead of the nation's welfare, such candidates as John McCain, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback will never gain the GOP nomination, and thank God for that. Those candidates who wish to claim the GOP nod, must understand that the base of the party will never be defined by extremists, by those uncivil boors who misrepresent honest efforts to resolve issues and find solutions, or who think that angry demands and screaming rhetoric can effectively replace leadership and comprehension of the key issues. No one candidate will ever be perfect, so we always have to weigh the individuals on their overall ability. The base of the Republican Party, in my mind, is an evolving demographic of people concerned with the security of the nation, the direction of our courts, the cost of our government, and the responsiveness of our leaders. The base is generally reasonable and open-minded, and is growing due to the simple facts that

A - far more people are conservative than liberal, and far more people under 50 are optimistic about America's future than pessimistic, and

B - the Democrats, for all their noise, have no effective alternatives on any major issue.

Comments (96)

Splendid essay, DJ.<p... (Below threshold)

Splendid essay, DJ.

On "another site" that used to welcome open discussions on Conservative issues, they are CONSUMED with hatred for George Bush...and frankly appear to be openly working for the utter defeat of all Republicans in order to "teach them a lesson".

This Gotterdamerung mentality provides a perfect "cover" for numerous Dems/Leftists to post proclaiming:
"I'm a LIFELONG Republican...but Im sitting out the next election"
"I'm voting Democrat or Third-Party next time to teach the Republicans a lesson"

or some such. and the folks at that "other site" just EAT IT UP!!

Good piece D.J.Sti... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Good piece D.J.

Still, kinda confirms my feeling that the 2 party system sucks.

It would be fantastic to have 3 equally viable parties. 5 would be even better.

So instead of "I killed my ... (Below threshold)

So instead of "I killed my wife because I loved her too much", we should instead subscribe to the Beaten Spouse/Devil You Know Syndrome mentality?

What good is a Republican party that sees no issues in disobeying the rule of law? What, precisely, is wrong with enforcement FIRST, then "normalization"?

When GOP fundraising is off by 40%, it may be time to take a look at what exactly the party faithful want and stop pandering for votes and screwing LEGAL immigrants.

More like we are the batter... (Below threshold)

More like we are the battered housewife who kills the wife beater...

The bill is a disaster rega... (Below threshold)

The bill is a disaster regardless of whether you like the President or not. Can we please focus on that.

I'm not a malcontent just because I think this bill is horrible for America.

Hey Republicans. Wake up. Just look at the changing demographics of California and how the GOP is not even competitive there anymore. Take a good look because that is a preview of America in 8 to 10 years.

I like "B". (would make a g... (Below threshold)

I like "B". (would make a good bumper sticker)

Ni Hao,Poorly suppor... (Below threshold)

Ni Hao,
Poorly supported & specious arguments, sir.

I have read the bill. Any bill that implicitly forgives identity theft, has "triggers" who's exceptions swallow the rule, and simply repeat previous legislation's flaws - note which *were* honestly called "Amnesty" is amnesty. All your wishing wont change that. Calling a spade a spade instead of a shovel, then accusing those with whom you disagree of 'not wanting to discuss the issue as adults' is a rhetorical trick famous and oft-used in the land of my origin... and you confirm that this is your intent by - after that breezy proclaimation - to omit that though the oppents of this bill have raise questions aplenty (nb: linked **DIRECTLY to the language of the bill**), the dissenters are marginalized, calling them "haters", "bigots", etc. What this really shows is that the pro-bill people have weak underpinning to their arguments and must therefore use ad-hominem attacks. At least those who (correctly) call this bill "amnesty" attack the bill & not its proponents. This shows that by implying that "they are not ready to discuss this like adults" you are simply continuing the practice.

If this piece is indicative of the quality of your analytical ability, you really should confine your comment to things less important to this Republic.

BTW, some instruction:
the above wasn't an ad-hominem attack, as I question *your* powers of analysis, not attacking the bill by commenting on your puny power of intellect.

- Mao Ma Ding
(Proudly American since 2007)

DJ: I refer you to the rece... (Below threshold)

DJ: I refer you to the recent Peggy Noonan essay on George Bush.She is not impressed.If you think Peggy Noonan is an extremist Republican you've gone stark raving nuts.George Bush seems to want to take the GOP far away from the conservative principles that I thought it and I shared.So be it.But I'll be damned if I will continue to support a party or a president that don't seem to agree with me on anything important and believe I am a "nativist" because I want the United States to have a border.I'm reminded of a Ronald Reagan quote from a long time ago.He said that he never felt that he had left the Democratic party but that it had left him.I'm beginning to feel the same way about the GOP.Bon Voyage.

"We see this in gr... (Below threshold)
"We see this in groups like the "Truthers", who made up a bunch of conspiracy theories about 9/11 in order to feel important, but they simultaneously claim an exclusive knowledge of "the truth", yet at the same time claim that they represent most of the nation in spirit."

The hypocrisy of the "truthers" is that out of their same mindless dribble about our govt being responsible for 9/11, most claim that Bush is incompetent in killing/capturing Osama bin Laden . Huh?

"The base of the Republican Party, in my mind, is an evolving demographic of people concerned with the security of the nation, the direction of our courts, the cost of our government, and the responsiveness of our leaders."

Although it's early, GOP party unity is not a strenght right now. And it will be necessary to unite the base down the road with the core issues that DJ has described above. It is encouraging to see the meltdown of the "promise's" made by the "mandated" left. Note to Pelosi: that boil that's growin' on your face is called "culture of corruption"---- apply demagogue cream and call your local psycho-therapist.

While I do fear that the immigration issue is splitting much of the base, I would submit to the President and the party leaders that the terms "illegal" and "amnesty" (reconciliation with out responsibility) is sticking in the craws of those who have most always abided by the rule of law. This is an issue that needs to have some closure or tabled soon.

Immigration is very importa... (Below threshold)

Immigration is very important to the base of the republican party. I believe the leaders of our party underestimated how much push back the base would give. To have things in the bill that will require background checks on all immigrants applying for the z-visa be done, but if the check isn't done within 24 hours, they get the visa anyway and the system will "catch up" with the immigrant. Come on. They must really think we are stupid to push that on us. This is a pivotal issue for me. The "line in the sand" as it were. I want enforcement first. Prove to me that our government can do their job and then I will believe them when they present other ideas.

This TB scandal is proof positive that the government does not have a handle of the borders. ww

Well this essay turned out ... (Below threshold)

Well this essay turned out to be a clarifying one for me.

As I see it, DJ is asking me whether I would like to be executed by electracution or by firing squad. He is saying that electracution is much better as it isn't as bloody. When I say I would rather live, he says I have no other choice, the chair or the bullet.

Now all I ask is that the country hold together 10 more years so I will have enough money to become an ex-pat like my brother.

By the way, I have no claims to represent anybody but myself. But for me I gave up voting for Democrats 27 years ago. I will vote Republican no more forever.

Bugs Bunny is getting my next vote.

Dear Net-izens, pl... (Below threshold)

Dear Net-izens,

please forgive misspellings in my previous post, I am rarely at my desktop machine, and usually access the web through my LifeDrive. The flaws in Blazer, (the Palm's web browser), such as the limited editing space, poor key/handwriting-recogition response, and lack of spelling-checker cause people who use ESL fits [grin ]

- Mao_Ma4Ding

Stands and applauds.<... (Below threshold)

Stands and applauds.

That rocked. You said what I've been feeling for quite awhile now.

Um, folks, George Bush isn'... (Below threshold)

Um, folks, George Bush isn't running for President in 2008. However, Hillary Clinton damned sure is, and her little speech the other day is a preview of what she intends to do to impose socialism on all of us. The most cursory glance across the Atlantic tells us that socialism is the perfect way to destroy ambition, innovation and self-reliance, but the Dems continue to push it because it will automatically give them a constituency that depends on them to hand out the goodies. If we refuse to vote, or vote for "Bugs Bunny" we will get what we deserve. Sometimes, in politics as in life, we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Grown-ups understand this.

Ni Hao, I find my... (Below threshold)

Ni Hao,
I find myself agreeing with both Phil and Xennady. I also feel that I - and any others foolish enough to go through the process to **LEGALLY** immigrate to the US - are considered some un-choice excrement upon the USs shoe. I am intelligent, educated, productive, and law-abiding. If only I had skipped the latter, I could have had Citizenship[sic] without spending barrels of money, years of my life, and the the death of my first wife and youngest daughter, (which is what started us on our move to "the Land of Golden Streets"...).

The unfortunate reality is that the GOP, GWB, & etc feel - because of the traitorist streak running through the DNC - that we *have nowhere else to go*. I have had staffers tell me that on the phone: "look, you sound like a person who really loves America, at election time, where else can you go - the other party has no ideas or plans...". I literally almost vomitted (yes litterally).

If this bill is so great, what is the hurry? Why forge it in the dead of night and come out pre-empting discussion by clling people who point out problems as bigot?

I know that much of m old home, (China) is backward technologically, but even there, if the roof leaks and damages the ceiling and wall, wexdon't say: I have no money to fix the ceiling and wall, so let the roof leak! I'll fix it when Ive a comprehensive plan to fix all the problems caused by the roof"

Further, this fix lacks reason. If you are trying something nevr done before - which is what proponents state when they say it isn't like other immigration fixes, whether they know the say that or not - why change multiple variables? Change one - the boarders - assess - then change the next variable. In this way - with constant course corrections - you are assured of betterment

Damn, Im so angry my English is breaking down. I'll come back later.

- Mao_Ma4Ding
Proud To Be An American since 2007

DJ...read the damned bill b... (Below threshold)

DJ...read the damned bill before you criticize others

"The base of the Republican... (Below threshold)

"The base of the Republican Party, in my mind, is an evolving demographic of people concerned with the security of the nation, the direction of our courts, the cost of our government, and the responsiveness of our leaders"

The base of the current Republican party, in my mind, are the fundamantalist Christo-fascists who are commtted to changing our government into an intolerant theocracy based on their narrow, misguided interpretation of the Bible. They are the only remaining group that seems willing to blindly follow this bungling incompetent of a president down the road to Armageddon.

You continue the baseless insulting talking point that only Repubs are concerned with national security. That is, and always been, bullshit. And anyone honestly concerned with the cost of our goverment has hopefully abandoned the good ship Decider long ago. The shameless selling out of our government to "privatization" by corporate interests will rival Iraq as the chief among Bush's poisoned legacies.

Actually grownups understan... (Below threshold)

Actually grownups understand that giving 20 million illegals amnesty (along with the additional tens of millions that will come in the next 2 decades for the next amnesty) guarantees that socialistic fate for the US whether Hillary is POTUS or not.

Once again, yes the bill su... (Below threshold)
Mr. Incognito:

Once again, yes the bill sucks.

This is about a lot more than one bill, and if you seriously think this Congress would pass anything that actually addressed the problem, you have not been paying attention.

DJ,Thank you for t... (Below threshold)


Thank you for that post. I have been with you from even before the Harriet Miers appointment (I like Alito, but am confident she would have been good as well). I have been with our President ever since I realized that Reagan was very probably our greatest president. I am certainly in the 32% of those that approve of our President and I of course do not approve of our congress at this time. In fact, my support of President Bush has not ever wavered even a tiny bit. I do have a strong desire that he would take a more pro-active stance to limit immigration and wish he would have tried to cut spending more, but overall I give him an A (I am a realist. We have to compare him to other presidents and in this sense he is in my estimation in the top ten). Thank you Mr. President, among many other things, you have protected America from from possible irreparable damage from Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry.

groucho, as long as Mikey M... (Below threshold)
Mr. Incognito:

groucho, as long as Mikey Moore and Jimmy Carter are lionized by the Democrats, it will be impossible for adults to believe the Democrats intend to protect the nation from terrorists.

Cynthia, The Sena... (Below threshold)

The Senate (atleast Republicans) offices are being figuratively "snowed under" by the members who want either to slow-down or stop this bill.

If they refuse to listen to the base of their party - the people who they constantly defame, but heretofore have loyally voted for them, (even if one held-their-nose); in what other way will we tell them "no more" ?

Instead of troubling ourselves to vote, we can just use the political party roles to decide who is elected. e.g.: "In District A there are 91 Republicans registered in this district and 74 Democrats, so the person here is to be a Republican... over in District B the 114 Democrats and 5 Republican - Landslide in that District for the Democrats!".

Frankly, the logic of "Hillary is Stalin's ideological granddaughter, so no matter how UNREPRESENTATIVE the Republicans are, we must vote for them!" is asinine, and beneath anyone who is cogent enough to press the "submit" button in a comments section of a blog.

I know FULL WELL about Socialism, having lived most my life under it. I know that Hillarys methods were refined under Lenin & his "Majority", (which never really was...) - Officers (and enlisted) in the army I was in are *required* to study history andvthe polical dynamics through which Socialism has come to blight this World. In unfortunate contrast to Murtha, who many in that aforementioned army would gladly call "Comrade".

If the party is so out-of-sorts that the representative of those who elected them not only refuse to hear - not listen, but HEAR - reasoned arguments and then instead use rhetoric designed to shut-down and stifle those who are disquieted, then they have created the instrument of their own destruction. Those are the consequences, and though perhaps niether you nor I deserve the hell that will decend from a DNC-run government, what else can there be? As Franklin said: "...if you can keep it!"

- continued soon, LifeDrive editbox is full [grin]

- Mao_Ma4Ding

Some of the president's sup... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Some of the president's support comes from people (like my mother) who support The President of the United States no matter what political party the current president is and no matter what their policies are. They think it's unpatriotic to voice any dissent whatsoever. And some of the president's "support" comes from people who pay absolutely no attention to politics whatsoever -- they flip a coin when asked if they support the President. Some of the president's support is from people who are just scared not to support him because they think George W. Bush is the only thing propping up Western Civilization. And then there are the True Believers.

Out of curiosity, Mao, how ... (Below threshold)
Mr. Incognito:

Out of curiosity, Mao, how do you know that you are the base, rather than a loud minority who is just trying to hijack the party's course over one issue?

Why, when your Senator does not personally call you up for advice, do you figure it means he/she/it is somehow "defaming" you?

Just how big is your ego?

mao_ma4ding , you're fun to... (Below threshold)

mao_ma4ding , you're fun to read. No "context" needed. Submit some posts here. Such as "When will China call in our debt?" Or will they just let US Fade Away...? Or whatever. Or just hijack a thread like everybody else.

"We see this in groups like the "Truthers", who made up a bunch of conspiracy theories about 9/11 in order to feel important..DJ"

Too pooped to pop, but suffice it to say:


ps: Xennedy's right: Read t... (Below threshold)

ps: Xennedy's right: Read the Noonan column!

So after 9/11 we invade and... (Below threshold)

So after 9/11 we invade and occupy a nation that was not responsible for that particular attack, even though the government tries to convince US that it was somehow involved. The invasion is over quickly, but the occupation goes badly for 4 years, resulting in our forces being steadily and systematically attacked and killed while stuck in the middle of a civil war that the invasion largely created in the first place. No ground is won, no strategic advantage gained, only a terrorist shooting gallery and training ground. Across the board terrorism is on the upswing and yet no one has the strength of will to look this sick puppy in the eye and say, sorry, it's time to change the plan. Not exactly a success by any standard of measurement. The deeper the hole gets the more delusional it is tto think we just need to keep on digging.

I have read Noonan. And I ... (Below threshold)

I have read Noonan. And I know her, hmm, "drift" from who she used to be to who she is now. Noonan is like certain other Webelebrities, who thinks that she is more important than the people actually doing the work, that she knows more than people with real experience in the issue, and her ego cannot stand the notion that she actually owes something to the party's leaders. Indeed, people like Noonan and others tend to think that all these years of spouting their opinion counts as great service, for which they should be rewarded. The columnists' version, I guess, of those movie stars who think doing a few public-service messages telling real folks how to live their lives counts as something.

Hey, she can say what she thinks and that's fine. But in the end, my opinion is just as valid as hers, and anyone else who can make a reasonable case has just as much standing as someone who gets paid to tell us how important they are. I don't much like folks who say "elections have consequences" one year, then decide they don't owe any loyalty to the guy they elected. I remember my promises, and I stick with my team.

I guess that's just more than some folks can manage.

DJ: I got lost when you sa... (Below threshold)

DJ: I got lost when you said:

But I will say plainly, that because they have chosen to personally savage the President, to abandon the GOP when their support would have made a difference, and to put their egos and image ahead of the nation's welfare, such candidates as John McCain, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback will never gain the GOP nomination, and thank God for that.

Isn't McCain in lock step with the president on immigration reform and defense of ongoing support in Iraq. The extremeists you are deriding in your piece are begining to aim their hate toward McCain (see how the polls are falling)?

I generally agree with your thesis, but I think the McCain situation is showing that he cannot win the GOP nomination because the so called base cannot abide his Bush-like positions. I think this may in fact show that only by reparing the current GOP rift will a Republican ever have a chance of winning the Presidency again. The whole key to winning is turn-out.

Cynthia,(continued f... (Below threshold)

(continued from my previous post)

In any wise, if the Republican elected *representatives* can so cavalierly discount not only their base, the patriotic Democrats (as few as they maybe), the independents, nor even slow down for those who are simply seeking - whatever their political stripe - to not repeat *obvious* previous failures in policy, then in what wise do they differ from the "mommy state" Socialists? They know better than we --- because theyve won the biggest popularity contest since their pompous buttock left high school?

Ive been filled-up with this "shut & sit-down so I can do important things, you stupid child" attitude from officals in the Great Republic. I've delt with their type before, and I know them. They are extremely small humanbeings in pants many sizes too large.

There were many in the much-maligned base who stayed home in the last election. This was because they were told one thing the previous election, but the party did another. They learned nothing, the boot-lick immediately went out on the blogs, fabricating a "New Truth": it was the neo-cons, no the Christian Right, no it was the Conservatives, no the rednecks, what have you -- it was their fault, not those who promised to *BE* Conservative but were not.

We know that this was pre-meditated (although it took while) because of the speeches by both GWB and the Melman-Bush team. They needed to lie about the cause of the results of the change in political landscape of CA. They blame prop187 for something that occurred due to the Reagan Amnesty, though prop187 occurred YEARS after the political change - which followed the demographic change.

Are Bush/Melman/Bush stupid? I really dont think so. I believe that the "CountryClub" faction (though comparatively small) sees the "Conservative" faction as an impediment. This we can infer because GWB & the other RINOs run *AS* conservatives, not as what they truely are.

(ran out of space again in my PDA, I'll finish - I promise - next post)

- Mao

I rarely take an opportunit... (Below threshold)

I rarely take an opportunity to bash Mr. Bush. But if you criticize people who would rather scream than discuss public policy as adults , I think the same onus should fall on the administration itself. They don't scream but Mr. Bush is a major offender in having a difficult time articulating policy in an adult fashion. I read repeatedly where he is terrific one on one but I often cringe when I see/hear him speak in a major public forum - and I think if I met him, I would like him personally. There was Reagan who was a Democrat and became a Republican and I feel was able to articulate his positons very well even if he wasn't the detail man. Then there was Clinton who was detail oriented. Discussion of policy was more fun to him than actually coming to a decison on policy. And he could make himself look like a larger individual than the history of the world at the time he was in office would warrant. But I see Bush II as an enigma and find him intransigently committed to policy I think warrants compromise and compromises/ loses interest in battles that I think are important to the "traditional" conservative movement. But maybe as DJ writes, the Republican base is an evolving demographic. I think for all the kicking and screaming in both major parties, Republicans are more likely to look for alternatives outside the party than Democrats would outside their own, especially now when they do not have an agenda outside of simply hating the current President. Pelosi annd Reid have demonstrated that unequivocally.

Scotty, McCain put a bullet... (Below threshold)

Scotty, McCain put a bullet in his campaign before he ever started running for '08. Ever hear of McCain-Feingold? Ever hear about what he wanted to do to "control" blogging?

And neither of those was 'in lockstep with Bush'. And if you have heard the man speak, he's hardly a Bush supporter.

DaveD, I have great confidence that the Gop will eventually calm down and work out its differences, if only because God is merciful and we know the Democrats won't offer real solutions. But the 2006 elections are a classic case of how not to do it. I warned long ago that historically, whenever the GOP loses seats the guys who stay in office start thinking they have to act like Democrats. And no matter where you sit on the bg issues, can any sane Conservative say that is the way to go?

It's a 2-tier job. Within the party, work out the platform and commitments to get critical jobs done. But in a general election, like it or not you have to turn out and vote for the Republican, because anything else - including sitting at home - is always much, much worse.

Latina don't come here to w... (Below threshold)

Latina don't come here to work on the plantation.

Cynthia, continued... (Below threshold)

Cynthia, continued

And please dont toss up the Santorum to me. He was tossed because he supported that ghost, Specter - as GWB told him to - against the conservative. In fairness to him, he was probbly told "it wont hurt your re-election, and W will,throw his support behind you if there are any problems...". He is too class an act to complain, but GWB gave no help, and - if I remember correctly - pulled his RNC money a few days before the election to put behind the Lost Cause RINO in New England.

Conservatives out numbet every other type politically -- or will until we import more slaves from Mexico. That isnt a hyperbolic statement above. Are you free if a party says: "Vote for us, or your child will starve, your food will be tainted, and your air poison!", and you are so poorly educated that you know no better - and so vote for them? Theleft needs this slavery because FDRs is going to crash soon.

- Mao_Ma4Ding

Mao, although you ignored m... (Below threshold)

Mao, although you ignored my earlier question, I ask another:

Where are you getting the information on which you basing all these claims? Have you ever stopped and tested that source for its own bias?

Didn't think so.

I read dozens of blogs dail... (Below threshold)

I read dozens of blogs daily. I read some of the screaming comments, probably post some of them. It's not hate for President Bush, it's hate for his refusal to listen (on the immigration issue) to the very people that put him in office. Insulting them instead of explaing his stand put him in the sewer with Chavez(Linda), Martenez, Gonzales and the crazies, both democrat and RINO in congress.
Everyone should get out a take a good look at the crime and poverty the Mexican criminals are spreading around the country.

Scrapiron, if you want to i... (Below threshold)

Scrapiron, if you want to improve the quality of your blog-reading, especially on this issue, try this one.

You're shooting at the good guys. A man might think about correcting his aim.

Bush's biggest problem is t... (Below threshold)

Bush's biggest problem is that he is doing less to explain the bill than the bill's supporters. If Bush believes in it, he should give a national address about the bill and explain it.

It definitely looks bad to me, but I have no read the bill and have basically only heard the critics' side thus far.

Also, the only thing Bush has shown is that being a moderate conservative is political suicide.

I take to heart what DJ has... (Below threshold)

I take to heart what DJ has said about my passion here, and I am sorry if I have offended.

1. I have pointed at facts. Why the dead of night? Why push through the bill -- bypassing every legislative safeguard, including the parts that normally go to other committees -- if this bill is the wonderkinder they say?

Why come out swinging, instead of explaining why the process to create this bill was so completely non-standard? If there was substance, there would not the ad-hominem attacks. That is GWDs pattern.

2. In anwser to your question: how do I know I am in the Majority?
Let me ask you: why are small donations down 40%? I know that, money being the lifeblood of politics - if outdated firmware/hardware were the cause, the problem would have been fixed before it became a problem -- unless you want to charge the RNC with incompetence?

3. yes I DO write funny, in English anyway -- though I must confess, I am not really ESL. English is my fourth language. Try writing in my language, so I can laugh too.

4. I dont think I am some special, or "look at me, I am important." I have a wider exprience than almost anyone I read here, and so I see a lot of things, from polly-anna-ism to outright lies to useful fools often enough. I know that Liberty must be jelously guarded, or it will be lost. I know that the more a government does, it can only do at the expense of the rights of the people. I know that incrementalism & "compromise-ism" will be the death of Liberty. If you compromise your true beliefs either they are not your true beliefs or youve surrendered. There are just 2 pertinant questions:
1. Does this bill encourage the rule of law - are all equal under that law?
2. If the answer is "no", then by what bending of definition can you say that it is in harmony with our Founding Documents?

The ball is back to you.

- Mao_Ma4Ding
ps: what does "hijack a thread" mean? Ive never heard that and dont understand. -mao

The bill sucks, Mike. Once... (Below threshold)

The bill sucks, Mike. Once you leave out the people screaming 'racist' on one side and the ones screaming 'amnesty' on the other, the bill is not too bad, except for three things:

1 (the big one) - There is no provision for enforcement. Kinda like telling folks you've set up a 911 phone bank, but that doesn't mean the police will come if you call;

2 (the history) - Existing laws are ignored, indicating that the politicians are looking for a quick something to slap on their 're-elect me' resume, rather than try to address things which a few tweaks could really help. Like improving local/federal law enforcement cooperation, or IRS investigation of companies known to have hired illegals, that kind of thing;


3 (the politics) - The screaming on each end makes it impossible for the adults to sit down and work out a real solution. Everyone seems to be looking for an image, rather than a solution, and that includes most of the prominent media types, unfortunately including blogs. Take a position, explain yourself, and see how long before someone writes in to tell you that you're not a real conservative, or twists your words to suit their rant. Civility was the first victim in this debate.

DJ: Thanks for clarifying.... (Below threshold)

DJ: Thanks for clarifying. I'm with you now. I see and agree that McCain's Maverick ways (gang of 14 etc)gives him 'base' problems.

While your piece only discusses the base (see title) I am still interested in the next question. How on earth does a Republican win in 2008? By my calculations winning "The Base" only gets you about 40% of the national vote. The swing vote appears to be where its at and the vast majority of the swing vote is going to vote against continuing in Iraq (unless there is a major terrorist attack on US soil which will wake them up to the reality of terrorism). So, the back of my envelope says (I pray it aint so): Bill Clinton will haunt the White House once again.

Hey DJThe conserva... (Below threshold)
john janus:

Hey DJ

The conservatives want the issue more than they want to solve the issue. It reminds me of the democrates with the war who opposes the war but won't give any solutions on what they would do to end it. I am wondering how many conservatives are leaving the movement because they don't like to see what is happening with the movement. I am beginning to see a belt way thinking amoung a certain group of conservatives that started with Harriet Miers. These conservatives write books and work amoung themselves to be heard and they don't care who they throw under the bus. George Bush gives them tax cuts and a booming economy and all they can say is he has not control spending. Conservatives like Noonan and the rest has painted themselves into a corner by saying anything that allows the illegals to stay in this country is amnesty. If that is the case then please come out and tell us you want to deport them immediately. These conservatives are cowards because they know that deporting them is impossible. They are also dishonest. Please tell me how having twelve millions people in this country who have no papers is less dangerous than having a open border. Lastly the reason for a comprehensive bill is that conservatives would agree to a bill with security only in it and when it is time to discuss the twelve million they would keep quiet and prevent a bill from coming forward.

DJ - I am in that 32-odd% a... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

DJ - I am in that 32-odd% and am a fellow fugitive from PolipunditKOS. But I have serious reservations about this bill. I appreciate the president's sincerity and desire to do right. I always have.

But what sticks in my craw is that it seems to treat people who break the law much better than people who obey the law.

Heck, even Hugh Hewitt, who stood by the president on Harriet Miers and the Dubai POrts deal, as both you and I did, has some very serious reservations! He says today:

"At this point I take out my Harriet Miers Fan Club charter membership card and put it on the table: This push for this bill is a disaster, Mr. President. Much much worse than the Miers nomination on which you had many good arguments, or the ports deal, on which you had fewer. On this issue there is no place to stand, and you are asking your friends in the Senate to go down fighting for a bad bill. It is a bad bill because no one believes the government can conduct millions of background checks (many spokesmen for the bill don't even pretend to know where the paperwork will go!). No one believes the bill will halt the next 12 million. No one believes you are going to assure the fence gets built. No one believes that the employer verification system will get done or work when some half-assed version of it does get done. No one believes that the probationary visas don't automatically convert illegal aliens with few if any rights into Due Process Clause covered legal migrants, with a Ninth Circuit ready and waiting to keep them here for decades.

"No one believes passing the bill will help catch the jihadist sleepers already in the country. The constituency that has always been with you except on the ports deal --the security voter-- has left the room. If you want them back, act quickly."

With even Hugh Hewitt raising a red flag, it's time to take notice and go back to the drawing board.

Here's the thing, Mao. I'm... (Below threshold)

Here's the thing, Mao. I'm not making fun of you, and actually your English is pretty good. My wife is from Hong Kong, by the way. But I do not agree that ad hominems can be justified, especially when they are used to avoid real discussion. And there is a big difference between saying what you think, and putting together a serious argument that tests assumptions and considers the options at hand.

What I meant by questioning sources, is that most of what we see and hear in the media is not really informing us. It's actually entertainment. Hugh Hewitt, for example. I love his radio show and I read his blog, and I agree with his position a lot of the time. But he plays for audience reaction, because he is after all a radio host and controversy boosts ratings. So sometimes I notice that Hugh plays more for reaction than to actually help folks understand the facts. Some prominent bloggers, like Michelle Malking, do the same thing. They are pushing for noise, not substance, especially on this issue.

To some degree, I'm guilty of this too. I like to push buttons sometimes, and it's fun to get folks going. But at the same time, I don't get money for this and no one is fooled into thinking I am somehow important or an influential person - I'm just a nerfhead punching out what I think, and trying to get folks talking in a serious way.

Look, I live in Texas, Houston actually, so I see these illegals, and I see directly what happens with gangs like MS-13 and the Latin Kings. But I also have a sense of balance about this, and frankly we are going to have to have a solution that provides hope for millions of poor Hispanics, because there's millions here already. No, that's not Amnesty, for reasons that take a long time to explain and I should go into that in another article, but - throwing out the 'Amnesty' charge is a lame and insulting attempt to shut down discussion on this issue. Yes, we have to secure the borders and yes, we have to make sure Congress knows this bill is garbage --- but then we have to push them to get real work done on the issue, and we have to be serious about how we move forward, because pretending that shooting down this bill and thumping our chests will do anything to really solve the problem, is as dishonest as a Pelosi ethics pledge.

Geez, this is wordy, so I will stop here for the moment.

"I read dozens of blogs ... (Below threshold)

"I read dozens of blogs daily. I read some of the screaming comments, probably post some of them. It's not hate for President Bush, it's hate for his refusal to listen (on the immigration issue) to the very people that put him in office."

So, when you elect a Presidnet you "own" him or her?

When 70% of ALL Americans are telling Bush to get out of Iraq, Scrappy pays no heed.

When a fraction of the Americans who voted for Bush tell him to drop the Immigration Bill, he's supposed to snap to and salute?

I guess whoever votes for the President gets to dictate his/her actions? Fine, remember that when we get to February, 2009.

Mr. DJ Drummond: I w... (Below threshold)

Mr. DJ Drummond:
I want to apologize for the anger I have displayed on your blog. In way of explaination, not excuse, having lived in places less blessed with Liberty than the US, I have some very hot buttons.

I do not understand which things points you are referring to.

I want to give you complete answers, but I saw a comment about "hijacking a thread". I dont understand the reference, but it didnt sound well meant.

I desided to take this to email, cannot find an email address for you. I assume that since I must enter my email address each time I comment that you can find *me*, so please do.

I am very angry, as I see people born here, who have this priceless treasure - Liberty - seemingly letting it slip through their fingers.

It as been a long time since I became so exersized that my English fell apart. I also am sorry you have to contend with that.

In the duration from now until 2 days from tomorrow, I will not come back, so if we could discuss this - andI will extend all my supporting information, logic, and arguments, for any point you are not clear on.

Again, I came into our house and was a poor guest. I am sorry for my conduct.

- Mao Ma4Ding

Mao, no need to apologize. ... (Below threshold)

Mao, no need to apologize. I was responding to some comments which seem to pop up over and over again. It's common for people to use phrases they have heard and find appropriate, but sometimes those phrases are satisfying emotionally, but don't hold up to inspection. I also think it's not very courteous to start a series of comments by claiming that someone has a 'puny intellect'. Yes, people do say things like that here, but it's considered a sign of a poor argument to resort to that kind of thing.

I don't recall writing anything here about 'hijacking the thread'. The phrase is an idiom. When someone takes control of a plane, boat, or other vehicle and forces it to go somewhere under threat, that's called "hjacking". When somneone makes comments which attempt to change or control discussion of the topic, that's commonly called "hijacking a thread".

Odd though, I did not see that phrase used in this thread.

Dang, mm4d, keep it up. Th... (Below threshold)

Dang, mm4d, keep it up. The ideas come through; you must be hella persuasive in your mother tongue.

mao_ma4ding:You we... (Below threshold)


You weren't highjacking a thread. I was just being flippant.

Hijacking a thread is diverting the "conversation". Good highjacking is not allowing contrived "talking points" to obscure reality. To not allow a tree to obscure the whole forest.

Bad highjacking is changing the subject entirely.

Posters probably hate both types, but they should expect the first and structure their thesis to withstand it.

"Like improving local/fe... (Below threshold)

"Like improving local/federal law enforcement cooperation,..."

And therein lies the rub. When we have "sanctuary cities" verbally proclaiming that they WILL NOT cooperate with federal officials in enforcement what do you do?

We have born and bred American criminals we have to contend with. We either throw them in jail or we give them numerous chances before we throw them in jail. But when you have a sanctuary city whose policy it is to ignore the legal residency status of foreign born criminals, they too are thrown back onto the street. We could be rid of them by deporting them when they get caught. Instead, these cities compound the problem and then cry for more money to tackle their rising crime rates.

This is my pet peeve in regards to enforcement. While the feds want to go after businesses who hire illegals, they ignore the provocative statements and defiant behavior of representatives of sanctuary cities.

And no one is addressing it.

Yet, it must be ob... (Below threshold)
Yet, it must be observed that for all the noise made about Bush's numbers, he has - consistently - scored higher than the public's opinion of Congress.

That's your answer? Pfft.

And snorting is a useful re... (Below threshold)

And snorting is a useful reply, jpe?

And snorting is a usefu... (Below threshold)

And snorting is a useful reply, jpe?

Oh... THAT's what that was.

I had the impression it was a brain fart, which is normal with jpe.

well folks, I am a... (Below threshold)
right wing yahoo:

well folks,

I am a proud Polipundit reader who sided with Poli on the immigration issue.

This thread is all sound and fury signifying little. Rewarding illegals with the goal of their crime (permanent residency) is AMNESTY, just like allowing a car thief to keep his stolen car is amnesty, no matter how many fines he has to pay or licenses he must acquire.

It amazes me to see the hundreds of man hours devoted to the idea that allowing illegals to stay is not amnesty, and that to call it amnesty is "empty political rhetoric." viva Orwell!

the elephant in the room is of course, is that enforcement has never been diligently applied for any length of time, and that this bill relieves the ICE of what flimsy responsibilities they shirked before, and does so by design. This is spite of the fact that the Fort Dix 6 are prima facie evidence that terrorists can threaten us via our southern/northern borders. the simple fact is that President Bush, (with whom i was, with former Rep Bill McCollum, photographed at college republican function in 1988) has NEVER stopped shilling for open borders and openly mocks his oath of office by refusing to enforce our laws. So his claim that he wants us to give him a change to secure the border is not merely a policy disagreement but rather an intended deception after 6 years of totally neglecting the border. This is all so obvious it is silly to even have to mention it.

Being the main culprit in worsening a problem and then using the size of that problem to intimidate those who propose a law based solution is truly Clintonesque.

I twice voted for, and donated to and manned phone banks for, this president, urging voters at 10:30 at night to be counted in FLorida, where Bush owes his office to 537 voters. I gave out signs and stickers, debated, participated in gotv, the whole nine yards. President Bush has tossed us aside with a grin.

I love this country and would die for it. President Bush thinks it is more important to protect the non existent rights of border jumpers and social security defrauders than it is to protect the rights of Americans who loved him dearly in his first term, and without which he would not have been elected.

Now, we are nothing but vigilantes, and wanters of that which is not right for america. We are agitators, trying to frighten our fellow citizens with empty political rhetoric. (funny name for discussions of the actual laws in the bill.)

Because we will not swallow a secret amnesty bill that leaves us with the tab for benefits illegal employers wont pay, as well as the degraded health care and schools that come with communities packed with border jumpers who think this land is theirs and tell you so if the subject is raised.

We are angry, yes, but more than that we are crushed and heartbroken.

Farewell DJ. Good luck. I didnt leave the Republican Party folks. It left me.

Mao_Ma4Ding, your posts wer... (Below threshold)

Mao_Ma4Ding, your posts were a treat to read.

I am a proud Polipundit reader who sided with Poli on the immigration issue.

Damn right Yahoo.

right wing yahoo, you're pr... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

right wing yahoo, you're projecting, you know that?

RWBDS, apparently an offshoot of the old DKos strain. You had close contact with a moonbat?

Sure seems that way.

Seriously, hating Bush is not only stupid and ineffective (I suppose you forgot he's not running anymore?), but plays right into the hands of the Democrats.

It really is that simple - disagree on an issue, that's one thing. But trash Bush and burn down the party, and you are a Hillary supporter.

You just won't admit it.

DJ,I cannot believe ... (Below threshold)

I cannot believe you still believe this stuff:

"We see this, among Conservatives, in those spittle-flecked individuals who cannot stand the President the nation twice elected, or their party members in Congress, to such a degree that many among them openly suggest that abandoning the party and leaving the fate of the nation in the hands of the likes of Pelosi and Reid, of Murtha and Byrd, somehow is desirable."

I'm sorry but please tell me what this man has done in office? How far can he take this Party down until even you decide that enough is enough? But no...you still seem to think that the Dems are so evil that we must support Republicans....Like Stevens, Delay, Lewis, Calvert, Ney, Cunningham, Abramoff and Foley. I worked the former Foley district last year for Joe Negron. You know what happened...Republicans voted but they did not pull the lever for Negron...they did not vote for the Dem either. Crist won that district with the same percentage of Rep votes that Foley drew in 04. Guess what multiply that nationwide next year...cause if this Immigration bill goes through that is what will happen. You can't scare us with Hillary...when the Republican elitist have given us the these types of politicians and then cram immigration down our throats. Have you ever thought that we are tired of supporting a President who plays kissy face to Ted Kennedy but has Lucy Graham go out and call us BIGOTS....The Republican party is on Ted Stevens "Bridge To Nowhere" already and there ain't no stopping it.

Proud Republican for Thirty Years but no more

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater

"I didnt leave the Repu... (Below threshold)

"I didnt leave the Republican Party folks. It left me."

This line was written in earnest just a few weeks ago at the far left web sites, (Kos, Du, et al), when the dems voted to fund the troops.

While many in the base are just as discusted as you are yahoo, there are remedys, and the party leadership is listening.

If you think the situation is dire now, PLEASE STOP A MINUTE AND CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE

Take the situation with immigration, add the raising of taxes, the socialized policies, that will return us to a government controlled welfare state, a pathetic foriegn policy where we kiss the mullah's patoot, and a ACLU driven national security------and you have your Clinton,Pelosi,Reid party that will make the immigration issue look like cocktail party.

Bottom line is the GOP MUST resolve these issues and unite or we will all have much more to bitch about that your party leaving you.

Do those who believe we sho... (Below threshold)

Do those who believe we should just get along
and support the amnesty bill also leave their
doors and windows unlocked? If not, why not?
I live in a border state where I get the 'privilege'of seeing illegals everyday that I'm out in some public place.
If you think their attitudes stink now, wait until
they recieve their free pass. I have a nephew who
is married to a Mexican citizen who is going through every legal hoop and thousands of dollars to be here legally and become a citizen.
This is a slap and insult to all law abiding immigrants.
And if the federal government cannot round up and deport the unknown quantity of illegals, then how are they going to ascertain via some kind of "card" within 24 hours who should stay and who should leave. If they cannot do the first, they cannot do the second either because it means
the same amount of effort and work for either.
Of course what we really need is more sanctuary cities like Minneapolis where they just busted a years old sex slave ring the city cops turned a blind eye to.
Also, we do still have the right to yell, scream
or just disagree with any subject we believe to hava an impact on our lives and our country.
Mr.Bush's idealism is wrong wrong wrong.

Rovin,What is the al... (Below threshold)

What is the alternative....Politicians like Stevens, Delay, Lewis, Calvert, Ney, Cunningham, Abramoff and Foley...Bills like Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind, Campaign Finance, and we got a taxcut (Which the bastards did not even make permanent so they could tell us the evil Dems would take it and they could use as a campaign prop...) We got Dubai Ports, Harriet Miers, Mike Brown, Julie Miers, Mel Martinez and Mike Chertoff. Now we get the coup d' gras...Immigration Reform. They tell us that they will stop the invasion on the border by giving amnestia to all that are here...and they promise to beef up the border. Now given all this (and I haven't even gotten into the IRAQ mismanagement) you expect the Republican Party to magically transform to a competent organization.....I don't think so.

Not one thin dime for these Elitist

BTW I read on the internet ... (Below threshold)

BTW I read on the internet today that the
membership in both the democratic and republican
parties is decreasing, there are now more
independents. This is something Bloomberg of
NYC is looking at in maybe running for president.
Now wouldn't that be a hoot

An interesting story AND li... (Below threshold)

An interesting story AND link. AND on-topic. Generally.


"Anyone who chooses to a... (Below threshold)

"Anyone who chooses to attack President Bush as part of an election campaign therefore, gives away 32.6 percent of the Popular Vote, or just about three-fifths of the Republican vote."
Of course, you're basing this on Bush's "floor" number of 32%, but it completley goes against your previous argument about abandoning the party to Reid, Pelosi, etc. A Republican can run a campaign hugely critical of Bush and still get a very large portion of the "loyal Bushie" 32%, since that 32% greatly fears what will happen if a Democrat gets elected. If the Republican candidate in 2008 campaigned on a platform that he thought Bush was incompetent and that he would return to the core Republican principles that Bush had abandoned, and this Republican was running against Hillary Clinton, do you seriously think a large section of the 32% you speak of would not vote for him?

Let's also look at the other side of the equation. You want to say that 32% is Bush's core number and that means you need to have those 32% in your corner come election time. Rasmussen Reports latest poll shows Bush's approval at 36%, so that's an even better number for you. However, they break the category down to Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Strongly Disapprove, and Somewhat Approve. Bush get's 18% in each of the approvals, 46% who strongly disapprove, and 15% who somewhat disapprove. Given those, I'd suggest that the actual base of fawning Bushies, such as yourself, is 18%, a hard number. The current base of Bush haters is 46%, a much larger hard number. If you want to use the higher number as Bush's base, that you "give away" if hammering him and his policies, you have to also accept that his anti-base is 61%, and you'll really have a hard time winning the election without them.

Also please note that the people identifying themselves as Republicans has fallen to a new low of 30.8%. Democrats are 36.3%. Unaffiliated are the remaining 32.9%. So, good luck with that warm embrace of Bush as a great president. He's weighing the Republican party down, breaking off pieces of the Republican base every day, and he's still got over 1 year left to screw things up some more.

The obvious path that the current Republican candidates are treading is to simply ignore that there is a current president named George Bush and talk up their similarities to Reagan. Their hope is not to alienate those like you during the primary by speaking ill of the man. If things look better for Bush once the general election rolls around, they'll probably embrace him more. If, as is more likely, things are the same or worse for Bush, they'll probably try to highlight the differences between the two of them and try to come up with some effective dodges against the Democrats who will attempt to mention Bush, and how much he stinks as a president, at every turn.

You might want to take a look at these numbers on age group and party affiliation before getting too excited about the next generations of voters.

The last time I had a discussion with a Wizbang blogger about "the base" was just before the 2006 election with Paul. He contended that the Teri Schaivo issue had "motivated the hell out the base" and that a recent New York Times article could lead the lagging Republicans to victory in 4 days. How did that one work out?

Budhamon, remind me: How d... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Budhamon, remind me: How did Goldwater's Presidency turn out?

Joe, pulling numbers out of... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Joe, pulling numbers out of context so you can sound impressive works for Michael Moore, but I have studied Statistics.

Your post clearly shows you have not.

Mao Ma Ding... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Mao Ma Ding

Xiexie, Mao.

ps: what does "hijack a ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

ps: what does "hijack a thread" mean? Ive never heard that and dont understand. -mao

To "hijack" is to seize (by force) a vehicle in transit either to rob it or divert it to an alternate destination. In this sense, to "hijack a thread" is to attempt to post non-sequitur material in order to divert from the actual topic. Usually happens when the person doing it cannot defend his/her position.

Joe has the right to chortt... (Below threshold)

Joe has the right to chorttle all he wants----for now. But with the Congress (both sides) aproval ratings lower than GW's-------he might not chortle for long

The hard fixed base of eith... (Below threshold)

The hard fixed base of either party is about 38% as evidenced by 1964 and 1972. That leaves the remainder as slightly leaning to one party or else swing voters.

Joe, pulling numbers out... (Below threshold)

Joe, pulling numbers out of context so you can sound impressive works for Michael Moore, but I have studied Statistics.

Wow, what a thorough and thought-provoking response. Usually, when people feel the need to say that they have studied X, it means that they can't defend their position logically with X and wish to try and fall back on the mere illusion that they are qualified to give their analysis and the other person is not. Here I was, all ready to read the statistical pearls of wisdom you had to offer, gaining the benefit for your long studies, but you offered nothing but bluster. Pity.

Of course, there are many ways to slice this statistically, but my analysis seems at least as valid as yours, much like your opinion is just as valid as Noonan's, even though she has studied politics. If you don't think so, please try and knock as many holes in my rebuttal as I did in your original argument. You can start by statistically defending your contention that, "Anyone who chooses to attack President Bush as part of an election campaign therefore, gives away 32.6 percent of the Popular Vote." So far, you've merely offered up Bush's current approval rating and then jumped to the fairy tale conclusion that all that support is immediately lost if a candidate attacks Bush. But, I'm sure that the statistical correlation between the two is much greater than it seems at first glance.

So come on, give it your best shot, using all the statistical knowledge you've gained in your extensive studies. But please, don't just claim special knowledge and try to end the debate that way.

The hard fixed base of e... (Below threshold)

The hard fixed base of either party is about 38% as evidenced by 1964 and 1972. That leaves the remainder as slightly leaning to one party or else swing voters.

That reinforces my point that attacking Bush, as a Republican won't automatically kill 32% of the Republican votes, especially if they're attacking him for not being a traditional conservative. Any Republican (against a Democrat) would get the vast majority of those votes anyway, regardless of what they say about Bush during the general election.

Why are Conservatives so wi... (Below threshold)

Why are Conservatives so willing to compromise on [i]everything[/i]?

The Liberals yank, we compromise. The Liberals yank, we compromise. The Liberals yank, we compromise.

Doesn't take long and you're fighting for becoming the lesser of the two Liberals: barely liberal or far-liberal.

"We see this, among Conserv... (Below threshold)
Atomic Conspiracy:

"We see this, among Conservatives, in those spittle-flecked individuals who cannot stand the President the nation twice elected, or their party members in Congress"

I don't know where the "spittle-flecked" comes from, but you got the rest right.

Many of us also can not stand Benedict Arnold or Vidkun Quisling.

I hope all of you rapid fro... (Below threshold)

I hope all of you rapid frothing at the mouth inquisitors who cannot accept anything but a 'pure' GOP that agrees with you in every particular are happy with President Hillary Clinton is passing massive socialized medicine past a democratic congress, in addition to raising taxes, passing a REAL amnesty bill, with amnesty and nothing but, without even a fig leaf. . .

YOu have a few choices in politics:

A: Get everything you want
B: Get some things you want but not others.
C: Status quo.
D: Gets some things you don't want but not all
E: Get the opposite of what you want.

Many of those throwing the temper tantrum seem to be wiling to trade B or C for E. "If I can't get EVERYTHING I want, I'll punish you and make sure I get the opposite, THAT will show them!

DJ Says,"Budhamon, r... (Below threshold)

DJ Says,
"Budhamon, remind me: How did Goldwater's Presidency turn out?"

How did Reagan get elected oh great one........if not for the failed candidacy of Goldwater. The seed of the Reagan Revolution was founded in the Golwater Campaign. Proof you ask: "A Time To Choose" , google it sometime and read it you might learn something. You still did not and cannot refute my post on why we should continue to elect Republican Elitist that are corrupt and rotten to the core.

"If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last." - Ronald Reagan

Don't feed the crocodile anymore.....

The only thing more destruc... (Below threshold)

The only thing more destructively passive-aggressive than a discontented wingnut is a frustrated moonbat.

SEE?DJ is calling ... (Below threshold)
right wing yahoo:


DJ is calling me a Kos dude now.
Support Bush or youre a democrat.

Sorry, aint buying it.
Why dont you stop blaming lifelong Republicans, and put the blame where it belongs.

Why doesnt the President have a responsibility to represent the people who elected him.

Stop asking me about my loyalty, which i clearly demonstrated, and question President Bush's loyalty to the base, to his party, and to the tens of millions of conservatives who voted for him, and to the Constitution, which demands that the borders be secured? Why not slowly, quietly, and without any trumpeting, simply begin to enforce the law? Why is it even necessary to ask this question? Why do people think we owe the border jumpers anything more than a quick lift to the south side of the rio grande?

Loyalty in politics is a 2 way street and we got dumped in jan 2005.

DJ just doesnt know it yet.

What would it take for Bush to lose you DJ?
If he came out for taxes and gun control, would you still say at least hes better than a democrat?

You get what you tolerate. Bush is acting like a liberal because he thinks the party is made up of people like DJ who will take a smack, thank him and ask him ih hed like to do it again.

I am sick of it. There has to be a line in the sand somewhere.

Besides if the 20+million illegals get voting rights after being granted their instant probationary status, we will never win another election again anyway.

All of this would be completely unnecessary if President Bush would simply obey the law.

We passed a fence bill last year DJ, remember it?
Tony Snow went on Hugh Hewitt's show and swore the fence would be built.

Where is that fence DJ?

Still think President Bush is serious about controlling the border?

In 5 years, when the 2 partyu system consists of Democrats and LA Raza, you will realize we were right.

None of this was necessary.

President Bush did it, not us.

I am not a Kos kid.

And DJ, how did Gerald Ford... (Below threshold)
right wing yahoo:

And DJ, how did Gerald Ford's presidency turn out?
Arlen Spector's? Lamar Alexander?

And President Bush starts t... (Below threshold)
right wing yahoo:

And President Bush starts the discussions off by saying any ATTEMPT at law enforcement is off the table. Totally off, Forget it.

He starts the process by secretly negotoiating with the Senate, instead of holding open hearings.

Just like last year, when instead of even handedly working with both houses of Congress on the immigration bill, he OPENLY SHILLS FOR THE SENATE BILL, TOTALLY IGNORING THE HOUSE AS THEY BEGGED HIM TO REMEMBER THE LAW, and how a bill becomes such a law.

This is way over the line. this is not republican government.

The right in America is a carefully balanced coalition. You maintain it by sticking to the basics.


President Bush has got #1 down and good for him. The Congress needs a whipping on this one.

with low taxes go low spending and on this the President has been a joke, sorry.

#2 hindsight is easy but we didnt realize how fragile the army was, and how few soldiers we actually had. I dont know why we havent pulled more soldiers from other areas of the world, but bottom line i support the mission in iraq.

See DJ? I support the war in iraq, although i think we are taking too many casualties from rules of engagement that tie our soldiers hands.

I support President Bush on Iraq.

Law enforecement well you know where I'm going on this one. If you dont have borders you dont have a nation, and without equality before the law, anarchy will follow.
president Bush has taken a wrecking ball to the law with his immigration position and hasnt stopped swigning yet. (Peggy Noonan, bush hater bush hater, has tried to tell him with her column, to stop swinging. think itll work?)

People i meet at work and out on the road, who gave money to the RNC, are asking me just which country President Bush thinks hes president of?

and they are not donating to the party , and neither am i.

Down 40% DJ, 40.

Go ahead, call me a kos kid, and say i have bds.

I held my nose and voted in 2006. We still lost.

If this bill passes, you have no idea how bad its gonna be in 2008. you ought to spend your time tellling President Bush to wake up instead of defending him as he dynamites the base on a daily basis.

and make no mistake,<... (Below threshold)
right wing yahoo:

and make no mistake,

Bush is dead set on sawing our branch of the Republican Party off. HE DOESNT WANT OUR SUPPORT, FRANKLY.

so he can get his money and votes from La Raza, good luck with that.

Stop calline me a Democrat and start discussing the specific accusations i have levelled agaisnt the President, and your arguments will fall aprt quickly. All everybody does is read a long detailed post of the Presidents "sins" and then say " well i guess youre just a hater then"

very intellectual.

Ryan's multiple choice post was the most reasonable reply to my statements, and he is right of course that you dont get everything you want in politics.

But, the President is doing 2 things that totally destroy the foundations of our economy and rule of law, and for that, a line ought to be drawn.

This isnt an argument over a few percentage points of tax increases, this is the nation, lock stock and barrel, right here.

first hes negotiating in secret and tryign to ram the bill thru, and demagoging.

Second the effect of this new law would be to invite millions of new democratic voters into the country (please dont try that Hispanics are natural republicans stuff, are you serious?)

and replace the middle class with a slave class.

replace accountability with patron client system

harriet miers was bad. this is infinitely worse.
this is everything.

DJ, thanks for publishing t... (Below threshold)

DJ, thanks for publishing this. I wondered if I was the only one who felt this way. It seems so obvious to me that this bill is really an attempt to claim the "moderate" ground and get a Republican elected in 2008 that I wonder how anyone can see it any other way, but people are instead talking about abdicating and allowing the Democrats to win. It's weird.

Mao Ma, 你说的对!I've ... (Below threshold)

Mao Ma, 你说的对!

I've got some bad news for Republicans, it's 1992 all over again. We already had one Bush deliver a Clinton, do you want to make it two?

There really isn't much that Bush has done, besides the tax cut, that unifies the party. A sizable minority think Iraq was a mistake, but a whole lot of a lot of people think Medicare, energy, immigration, borders, No Child Left Behind, Harriet Miers, Social Security "reform", spending, etc. were far bigger mistakes. I can't believe you would have a post trying to say that people who are for small government are not the base of the party. Really? That's a shocker. If Bush & the Congress sellout every principle, why should we elect them? If you look at 1992, yes Clinton sucked, but 1994 was pretty good. If we just vote for these guys again, THEY WON'T CHANGE!

Bill Clinton was a bad President and Hillary will be worse, but Republicans don't offer much of a choice, except "we'll raise taxes slower" (unless there are mystery spending cuts forthcoming, taxes will have to go up in the next two years because the SS begins to explode in 2008).

I think there needs to be a purge. If Republicans want to win, they can start by opposing Bush on amnesty and breaking with him on global warming and any other retard idea he has. Or, if they're lazy, we can try to purge these guys in the primaries. But if what I got in 2006 (Campaign slogan: We suck- but the Dems are worse!) is the same in 2008, I and a whole hell of a lot of other people will withhold our votes. Just like the Democrats failed in every election in which their chief argument was negative (until this last one when Republicans went negative too), so Republicans will lose.

Guys, these aren't football... (Below threshold)

Guys, these aren't football teams. No need to be cheerleaders.

I don't want a Liberal in the WH. That's for sure. However, I certainly don't want a person who calls him/herself a Conservative but is in fact the opposite in the WH either. I've supported Mr. Bush through thick and thin and I get a larger, more invasive government as thanks.

The problem with this bill is that anyone who is reasonable (see, I can play word games too) realizes that our government's modus operandi is to get over the big hurdle first and then chop away many of the steps that the people agreed to to get over that hurdle.

A few years after this bill is passed, the next bill passed will be to get rid of all fines, fees and possibly waiting periods because it will have been found that they just don't work. It's magical thinking to believe that they will follow these rules in droves.

And in the meantime, more people will cross either north or south border because if we can't fix it now, we sure won't be able to in the future.

And therein lies the rub. Most Conservatives who aren't happy with this bill knows that the gov't has failed for many, many years and simply want to see action -- not more laws.

If protecting our borders is as a bipartisan need as we are led to believe, then they should work on protecting the borders -- and ~then~ get into the conversation of, "OK, we've plugged the leaks -- now what to do with those who are here?"

But in fact it's apparently not bipartisan to protect borders. If it were, it'd be happening.

Eric, thanks for your comme... (Below threshold)
right wing yahoo:

Eric, thanks for your comments.

sorry, but you must support President Bush regardless of what he does, without penalty or reservation, or you are a KOS freak with BDS. period.

our slogan for 08' "what, hold us accountable? What do you want, a democrat?"

we are going to clean these vermin out, and replace them with real conservatives who wont sell our interests out as soon as they take office.

Then we will turn and fight the Democrats.
Like Peggy says people, it's time to let go, and reclaim the party.

It really is that simple... (Below threshold)

It really is that simple - disagree on an issue, that's one thing. But trash Bush and burn down the party, and you are a Hillary supporter.

You just won't admit it.
Posted by: DJ Drummond

Your illogic has been consistent DJ. Bush is not the Party and is not running for reelection. The sellout deserves all the criticism he's getting. You can goose-step along with him holding his coattails but recognize yourself for the lemming you are. You're the same as those lobotomized donks who routinely vote for that disgraced senator, Ted Kennedy. If it wasn't for sycophants Bush's approval rating would flatline.

DJ, your reasoning skills have regressed even further.

Good afternoon, as an "irra... (Below threshold)
Optimistic Patriot:

Good afternoon, as an "irrational malcontent", I thought I'd include a link to my rebuttal. Thanks. http://www.nerepublican.com/index.php/2007/06/02/dj-drummond-is-off-the-base/

good post OP,money... (Below threshold)
right wing yahoo:

good post OP,

money quote:

One of the few nods he makes to any issue at all is to state that everyone "deserted" the president in 2005 and 2006, which raises the question about whose party is it anyway? Does the Republican Party exist to serve the president, or do he and it exist to serve us?

DJs answer: bow down.

Bush, and his pro-amnesty c... (Below threshold)

Bush, and his pro-amnesty cronies, are killing the GOP. GOP identification has dropped almost 7 points since the 2004 election. GOP loyalists, i.e. "Country Club Republicans" are content to lose the conservative backbone of the party, and will find themselves in political limbo for doing so.

Bush's 32% approval is not the floor of his support. It will drop even further, especially as though who still back him on the GWOT fall away due to Bush's failure to secure this nation's borders, while flaunting those that break the law as "those who make America work."

McCain is the only GOPcandidate who openly identifies with Bush both on Iraq and immigration, and his candidacy is dead in the water.

I support Bush on Iraq but ... (Below threshold)

I support Bush on Iraq but his handling of the war has been abyssmal. And I support the effort to this day but if I were asked by a pollster whether I support Bush I'd tell them I want him deported.

Here in CA I changed my registration from R to Decline To State. Phuq the RNC, DNC, Bush and all the sellout lowlifew in DC.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

-Marcus Tullius Cicero

DJ your opinion is as valid... (Below threshold)
Colorado KnightOwl:

DJ your opinion is as valid as everyone elses...Everybody has one....

Bush will debate the war with Pelosi, Reid and Kennedy and says that "debate is American and not unpatriotic." He goes to talk with the left and hold nothing against them...Billary or Teddy or Kerry can call him traitor or liar from the well of the Senate and GWB will ask them to help him write and immigration bill...But let a "conservative" criticize him and claims that those of us who don't agree are "not doing what is right for America"

So why does he want to please Kennedy, and doesn't care if he offends the people that actually contributed to his election and re-election????

Is there a DJ Drummond filt... (Below threshold)

Is there a DJ Drummond filter we can apply to Wizbang's RSS feed? I've quickly grown tired of his screeds, and don't wish to be bothered with them anymore.

Our President said this las... (Below threshold)

Our President said this last week:

"Addressing one of the most sensitive issues in the measure, Bush expressed hope that the changes would reduce the need for a fence along the border with Mexico.

The bill requires the completion of at least 370 miles of fencing, along with other security measures, before any temporary worker program can go into effect, but doesn't specify how much of the border ultimately will be fenced. Congress approved legislation last year calling for 700 miles of fence.

The proposed fence has drawn protests in Texas, where officials fear it will hinder commerce and cause environmental problems.

"The fence sends a clear signal that we're serious about enforcing the border," Bush said. "A lot of these ranchers down there are saying, `Wait a minute. Bad idea.' I presume we're not going to build a fence on places where people don't want it.""

Now what is this talking point about making our borders more secure. Hell, I got an email from Mel Martinez that bragged about that fence. My point is that they are lying again to us. The GOP is corrupt at the top and it is time we threw the bastards out into the wilderness. Every Senator that votes for this monstrosity should be thrown out on their arse.

Eminent Domain, if the gove... (Below threshold)

Eminent Domain, if the government doesn't already own the strip along the border.

There ~would~ be the issue of at least one Indian reservation which resides in both the USA and Mexico.

It really is that ... (Below threshold)
The Other JD:
It really is that simple - disagree on an issue, that's one thing. But trash Bush and burn down the party, and you are a Hillary supporter.

You just won't admit it.

Posted by: DJ Drummond at June 1, 2007 09:25 PM

Now is anyone surprised as to the reason that DJ got gonged from Polipundit?

The whole concept behind the "big tent" philosophy is that people within one party can have differences of opinion. As LBJ so famously put it, "I'd rather have somebody inside my tent pissing out, rather than somebody outside my tent pissing in."

But evidently that doesn't provide enough ideological purity in DrummondWorld.

You state that we should support 43 100% without question (otherwise we're Hildebeasts), and you then turn around and castigate anyone who has the effrontery to actually possess and express an opinion that 43 is (by every reasonable interpretation) pissing away our collective efforts at national security via this bill.

And we're the ones with the problem.


DJ, it is rhetoric like yours that makes a whole bunch of people end up pissing into the tent.

Ni Hao, everyone. My self-... (Below threshold)

Ni Hao, everyone. My self-imposed time away has ended, and English is again, (more or less [grin]) at my command.

I noticed over the weekend, more terrorist were caught. I have applauded GWB for his efforts in Iraq - and make no mistake, the war against these people is a necessity that can not be over emphasized! I dissagree with the ROE, but I'm not the flag there.

My argument rests many points, but two only are necessary to show why, reguardless of how you in general feel about GWB. These two do not require either your statistical expertese, nor my background in military theory.

1. The background checks time allowance.
Comments: I do not have the figure at hand, but the check must take no more than, I think the figure was, 1 business day.
Impossible. For a firearms check the law requires more than one day. Attempts at reducing the check time are always tabled with the "...can not be done is so short a time..." The volume applying for permits is vastly less than the number of illegals. Therefore it is impossible to do this job with any amount of workmanship.

2. It relies on the illegal himself to come forward. I will, for the sake of argument stipulate that most "honest" illegals will. This leaves some number of them that will not, among this number, there will be an unknown/unknowable number who are the enemy.
Comment: this is reson enough to seal the borders. This *can* be done, and would require less effort to seal against people entering that it too China to seal against people leaving - and withinour sovergn rights as a nation.
Then, as you catch the illegal, you have a choice:
a) toss them over the fence. No hard feelings, but next time come in the front door.
b) toss them over the fence, but issue a "move to the top of the line" card & start a background check, to speed up the process.

The fact that the admin. says that we can't find the illegals is the factor that will keep the deportations from being massive.

-Mao Ma Ding

DJ If I might ask... (Below threshold)

If I might ask, were are you in Texas? I lived in Texas when my current wife (during my courting of her...) was PCSed to Lackland, then Randolf, then Shepard. I liked Texas - the people - though I did not care as much for the weather. It was very different than where I grew up. Much more mosture in my early childhood, but later I grew up in a place where the weather is a lot like that at Hill in Utah.

- Mao Ma Ding






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy