GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Most of the analyses of the likely fallout from Hillary Clinton’s refusal to endorse or denounce the issuance of drivers licenses to illegal aliens in last week’s Democratic Party debate have focused on her and her party’s nomination horse race.
Will Obama or Edwards be able to use her lack of (Bill) Clintonian skills at obfuscation to derail her ride to the nomination? Yes, that is a very relevant issue even if her major rivals agree with her on the substance, i.e. Hillary issued a statement later that she agrees with giving illegals licenses. I think the main point of the matter from the Democratic Party standpoint is that many grassroots Democrats fear she would be a disaster to the party down the ticket and that with her historically high negatives she can’t beat a mainstream republican.
But the most important issues and lessons for Republicans revealed by this event are:
1) The Democratic Party is and will remain 180 degrees out of phase with the vast majority of the American people and probably a majority of rank and file democrats on what is probably the one of the top two or three issues that concern the electorate and which will drive a large number of one issue voters in favor of border security;
2) When forced to answer questions directly on substance, instead of Bush bashing, their liberal views cannot stand the light of day any more than a Vampire can; and, maybe most importantly,
3) The reason the Democratic Party cannot moderate their open borders stance is that they know that they cannot win elections free of voter fraud.
Excerpts and columns by liberal E. J. Dionne and conservative John Fund are instructive (and read the whole columns too):
In the short run, Clinton’s exquisite calibration of her positions was the issue. But her debate dance reflects a deeper worry among Democrats that Republicans are ready to use impatience with illegal immigration to win back voters dissatisfied with the broader status quo.
The issue is especially problematic because efforts to appease voters upset about immigration — including a share of the African American community — threaten to undercut the Democrats’ large and growing advantage among Latino voters. For Republicans, the issue is both a way of changing the political subject from Iraq, the economy and the failures of the Bush presidency and a means of sowing discord in the Democratic coalition.One poll finding this week that shook Democrats came in a survey conducted by Democracy Corps, a consortium organized by party consultants Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan and James Carville. It asked voters to pick two from a list of seven problems that explain “why the country is going in the wrong direction.”
The survey found that among independent voters, 40 percent — by far the largest group — picked this option: “Our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing.”
By contrast, a lack of action on health care was named by only 24 percent of independents as a core problem, and Iraq by 23 percent.
The Democracy Corps poll, along with a Pew Research Center survey released this week, found Democrats with substantial advantages over Republicans on a variety of measures. But many Democrats fear that the more trouble Republicans are in, the more they will be willing to use immigration to attempt a comeback.This has created serious tensions among congressional Democrats. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, has risked the ire of Latino groups by warning that the party must deal with concerns about illegal immigration.
Rahm will be unsuccessful on this, unlike his October Mark Foley 2006 surprise.
Why?
Listen to John Fund. Listen to this. (Wolf Blitzer impression. Sorry)
‘This Will Make
Voter Fraud Easier’
Why does Mrs. Clinton want driver’s licenses for illegal aliens?
Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked during a debate this week if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. At first she seemed to endorse the idea, then claimed, “I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.”
The next day she took a firmer stand (sort of) by offering general support for Gov. Spitzer’s approach, but adding that she hadn’t studied his specific plan. She should, and so should the rest of us. It stops just short of being an engraved invitation for people to commit voter fraud.
The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as “Motor Voter,” that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver’s license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote.But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen. That greatly concerns New York election officials, who processed 245,000 voter registrations at DMV offices last year. “It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to . . . get a number of people registered who aren’t citizens and went ahead and got them drivers’ licenses,” says Lee Daghlian, spokesman for New York’s Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Ginny Fields, a Long Island Democrat, warns that the state’s “Board of Elections has no voter police” and that the state probably has upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants old enough to drive.
The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that “4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election” in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.
Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.
Gov. Spitzer is treading perilously close to that. Despite a tactical retreat this week–he says he will only give illegal immigrants a license that isn’t valid for airplane travel and entering federal buildings–Mr. Spitzer has taken active steps to obliterate any distinctions between licenses given to citizens and non-citizens.
In a memo last Sept. 24, he ordered county clerks to remove the visa expiration date and “temporary visitor” stamp on licenses issued to non-citizens who are legally in the country. A Spitzer spokeswoman explained the change was made because the “temporary” label was “pejorative,” given that some visitors might eventually stay in the U.S. Under fire, Mr. Spitzer backed down this week, delaying the cancellation of the “temporary visitor” stamps through the end of next year.
But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver’s licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don’t “have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form.” What’s more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.Gov. Spitzer’s office told me the courts have upheld their position on Social Security numbers. Sandy DePerno, the Democratic clerk of Oneida County, says that makes no sense. “This makes voter fraud easier,” she told me.
Despite her muddled comments this week, there’s no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration–easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure that she attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate she’s pitted against–even libertarian Ron Paul. She knows she may have trouble winning next year. Maybe that’s why she’s thrown herself in with those who will look the other way as a new electoral majority is formed–even if that includes non-citizens, felons and those who suddenly cross a state line on Election Day and decide they want to vote someplace new.
The GOP now has the ammo to drive a stake thru the vampire’s heart, and the vampire is not Hillary, it’s the Democratic Party. They can’t cry for po’ illegals to vote, especially when 911 hijackers were registered to vote via drivers licenses. It’s not for the children.
Republicans, all republicans, should demand a national voter ID law in federal elections.
I come away wondering if the Democratic majorities achieved in 2006 were possible only thru voter fraud. This country is simply way too conservative as compared to its elected officials.
Hillary’s gaffe has presented the GOP with an opportunity to achieve the permanent majority Reagan and Newt put us the path towards.
It’s not about Hillary. It’s about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the national Democratic Party and its proven failed liberal policies that they continually try to hide by bashing Bush or DeLays or Foleys.
They cannot advocate voter registrations without ID without exposing themselves in such a way that would fully discredit them with the public.
Our nominees in the Race42008 must drive this home.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.win-the-war.com/
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
This is definitely an issue that, played right, can regain the white house for us. It’s not the only one, but Gamecock is right that this one begs for the attention it deserves.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Insightful analysis as usual Mr. Gamecock. Good work.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Thanks guys.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Gamecock, this is an excellent post!!
Spread the message (to the RNC and our candidates) loud and clear across the Land!
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“This country is simply way too conservative as compared to its elected officials.”
This country is NOT conservative.
Nor is it liberal. It’s a moderate country –
*Moderately pro-choice
*For gay unions but not gay marriage
*For a timetable in Iraq, but not surrender
*For more government involvement in health care, but not “socialized medicine,” whatever the hell that distinction is
*For a higher minimum wage, but with tax breaks for businesses
*For more tax cuts, but not for the rich
*Against gun control, but for an assault weapons ban
*Split on global warming’s causes
That is all total crap, but that’s the electorate.
There are polls to back this up …. www dot polling report dot com — go down to “issues.”
This is a moderate country. The myth that the right puts out that this country is “conservative” and we lost because we “weren’t conservative enough” may just destroy us in a landslide in 2008 if you people get to nominate your deity, Mr. Romney.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Fred is the deity now.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
TLG, guess you didn’t see the “as compared” modifier since you didn’t respond to what I actually wrote?
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
It should be obvious that Sanctuary City Rudy is not the right messenger to exploit this issue.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
And TLG… we are quite conservative by Western standards on the international scheme of things. Democrats would be considered moderates in Europe, yet we vicious conservative, mildly nationalist Republicans keep things pretty evenly split.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
“This country is simply way too conservative as compared to its elected officials.”
Gamecock,
Rick Santorum would strongly disagree.
Anyway, aside from that, I do agree with most of what you wrote. But I don’t think the Illegal Amigo debate has anything to do with a liberal or conservative or moderate electorate. There are plenty of rich liberals in Northern VA that don’t want illegals diminishing their property values and would love to see elected officials take a tougher stance on enforcing the existing law. Moderates are on the same page. And of course the economic conservatives think that open borders make funding government services (particularly in border towns but even more generally nationwide) a virtual money pit.
The only people that don’t want to find some way to drastically reduce illegal immigration are the so-cons, on humanitarian grounds, but they are in a minority.
Good thing the country *isn’t* ridiculously socially conservative.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Oh yeah - and obviously the business community - they are in bed with Democrat leaders because there is a nonstop flow of cheap labor and a nonstop flow of new Democrat votes.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Dave,
Romney is no better. You’re not fooling anyone. Seriously.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Adam, I don’t know what universe you inhabit, but from my interactions with plenty of hard line SoCons, for some reason recently illegal immigration gets them angrier than abortion or gay marriage. I was at a PCO meeting where the legislative GOP caucus representative almost got lynched for saying there wasn’t much state legislators could do about it. The emails I get from the Christian Coalition types (you get on their list without trying when the CC chair is married to the county GOP chair) are more often about immigration than abortion. I heard virtually no noise from them when Washington passed a civil unions law, even though I was in as good a position as anyone to hear it. I think you may be projecting Huckabee’s views onto SoCons generally. I think Huck is enjoying the same privilege of anonymity at present that Fred did.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
PnGrata,
Perhaps I should have been more specific and saidf “social conservative opinion leaders”. It’s not just Huckabee. Look at Brownback. Look at Bush. Look at the Catholic Church. They’re loving it. It increases membership.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/243271/illegal_immigrants_the_catholic_church.html
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Adam,
Romney’s platform and record on this issue are superior to anybody’s. It’s true that Fred’s platform is very similar to Romney’s, but the reason is plagiarism. Fred adopted Romney’s positions plank by plank. Rudy, by contrast urged illegals to swarm into NYC, and wore it as a badge of honor. He can’t credibly combat Hillary on illegal immigration. McCain, the author of McCain/Kennedy is even worse. Huckabee may be the worst of the bunch. Only Mitt or Fred could run and win on this issue.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Nicely put, Gamecock. Ever consider exploring the added angle of foreigners’ donating to the HRC campaign? It seems there are an inordinately generous bunch of otherwise impoverished members of non-citizen Asian communities who have maxed out their contribution limits — for each member of their families.
It really makes me wonder if there’s not some “aid” from abroad making its way through unusual channels to fund the globalist pro-Clinton campaign. (Not unlike some of the dubious sources of support for Ron Paul, as far as that goes.) Then again, the Clinton’s are quite good at keeping the sneaky stuff just a step or two away from direct evidence that can condemn them of wrongdoing.
If Reagan was the Teflon President, the Clintons are coated with mucous: the slime that prevents them from succumbing to pathogens. :/
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Rudy can win on this issue. He has a credible explanation for why NYC needed the policies he inherited. He can point to 9-11 changing his ideas on immigration. (It did for me.) And when Rudy says, “trust me, we can end illegal immigration,” the electorate will *believe* him more than anyone. And they will believe Romney least, since so much of the electorate sees him as a cheap used car salesman type phony.
Rudy has a teflon other politicians do not due to 9-11, just like Reagan’s teflon. Moreover, Rudy has an ability to *change* people’s views, and to get the middle to accept conservative solutions as common-sense things that need doing, which they previously disagreed with. If he can do that with 85% Democratic New York, he can do that with 50% Democratic America. I’ve never seen another politician who can successfully re-educate like Rudy can. A political party would be as lucky as hell to have *that* person leading it! Talk about a majority party for a generation!
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Dave,
None of our guys are Mr. Perfect on this issue. Romney didn’t care about it until he decided he was going to persue the presidency. He was just fine with McCain Feingold. You’re not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in the Romney camp that he is anything other than a very recent convert (where have I heard this before?) to the Mr. Tough Guy Approach. Fine. Whatever. I don’t remember hearing “Press One For English” in 1994. But Romney’s record on this is not great. It’s not better than Rudy’s. Rudy at least went to the feds to try to toughen deportations. This was way back when Romney was still either a liberal or masquerading as one.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
And anyway to echo what Metro said, many people have changed their minds on this issue after 9/11. It would make sense for that to happen. I don’t particularly care that Romney or Rudy have moved to the right on this particular issue, because it is definitely more of a conspicuous problem than it was 20 years ago. You just couldn’t resist your shot at Rudy. It would be fine if your guy had a better track record or more consistent position. But he just doesn’t.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
#16 GREAT POINT
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
And TLG… we are quite conservative by Western standards on the international scheme of things. Democrats would be considered moderates in Europe, yet we vicious conservative, mildly nationalist Republicans keep things pretty evenly split.
Uhm…no one is talking about the international scheme of things. Why do you twist what I write? Gamecock said that this country was conservative, as in, by US standards. It’s not.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
#21 TLG just can’t read eh? I said, as if:
“This country is simply way too conservative AS COMPARED TO its elected officials.” [emphasis added]
Got it now bro?
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
#21 SEE ALSO #7
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Adam,
Romney was very consistent as Governor. Rudy was also very consistent as Mayor–only on the other side of the issue. These facts will come out during the general, regardless of which one gets the nomination.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Enjoy your kool-aid Dave.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
MarkG - love the muccous
This all goes back to the chinese campaign $$ for missile tech that Bill should have been charged with and removed from office or shot for treason.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
MarkG - love the muccous
This all goes back to the chinese campaign $$ for missile tech that Bill should have been charged with and removed from office
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
““This country is simply way too conservative AS COMPARED TO its elected officials.â€? [emphasis added] Got it now bro?”
But that isn’t the case, and it varies from state to state, too.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
#28 Voters that elected republicans to congress from 2000-2004 stayed home in 2006 beacuse they didn’t enact the conservative policies they campaigned on and got approval of from a majority of voters. The Dems gained the majority in 2006 by running conservative dems.
I’m right. The reps get to DC and go wobbly.
November 4th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Gamecock,
You know that is way too much of an oversimplification. Carol Shea-Porter is no conservative. Not even close. Linc Chafee didn’t go down for being too liberal. Now I was no Lincoln Chafee fan but I would rather have had a “Republican” in fricken’ Rhode Island vote with our party 30 percent of the time than a True-blue Democrat that never ever will. Again, Santorum was Mr. Conservative. There is no way he lost by 19-points because of some perceived lurch to the left. Everyone knew that Bob Casey was *less* conservative on social issues that Santorum, however centrist on those issues the former governor’s son may be. George Allen wasn’t too far to the left. He was stupid and shot himself in the foot, but the race shouldn’t have been that close. And if you listen to Jim Webb, he is an economic liberal, like Bob Casey.
And which sitting senator is the most threatened this cycle? Sununu. Do you honestly believe that if he started to act more like Santorum then he would win? How about if he started to act like Inholfe? The very reason he is threatened is because outside of the South, the people think the party as a whole is too socially conservative and too pro-Iraq War. The Iraq war has a shelf-life for how long it can hurt the GOP, but the insistance on social conservatism is going to continue for years to come to hurt the party in medium and large cities and their suburbs (like NY suburbs, DC suburbs, Philadelphia suburbs, Chicago burbs and on and on) until the party takes a less aggressive stance and moves to where these voters are. You’re not going to move the voters to the right on social issues.
This stuff has been happening since 2000 and was muted for a time after 9/11 only because everyone was concerned about security. Now, half the country doesn’t think it’s a threat or that the threat is oversold to the people. It’s too bad but true and as a result, the shifting of suburbs away from the GOP has started again.
November 4th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Adam makes a lot of sense, but he leaves out one important factor/issue which is economic insecurity. I personally do not feel it because I have a graduate degree and am invested in the market. I have made decent economic decisions. But a vast number of americans are treading water. They work and not all live above their means. If you have a kid in college (god forbid more than one), and a mortgage, car payment, insurance, and you make say $100,000 combined (wife and husband), you could be struggling.
The disconnect between the economic data and the real life experiences of many in the middle class is the difference between capital and labor.
In 2006 and heading into 2008 the dems are capitalizing on this insecurity. Giuliani was absolutely correct when he said in a Fox interview that the dems are creating welfare/social programs for the middle class. The problem for the GOP is, as a few commentators have been pointing out, the middle class seems to want these programs. Of course they do!! Again, if you have a kid in college at 50k a year, you want a low interest loan.
Illegal immigration plays into their economic insecurity because it not only drives down wages but it also cuts into the profitability of some small businesses.
The candidate who can come up with a solution to this problem will have a winning issue for 2008.
November 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
#30 I was speaking of the House, and all the conservative dems that un-seated repub incumbants and open seats. my bad
But my main point is that too many our elected repubs lose their conservative spines after winning races on conservatism vs a liberal dem. They get to DC and want to be loved my their honorable colleagues and all the libs of power that run the city. Too many want to be Tv stars and the only way to get on TV is to “grow” and be lib on some issues and bash the president or one’s party.
That a majority of americans elect conservatives proves my point, ie that our elected reps ACT more liberal than the majority of the voters want them to.
November 4th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
#30 But you make good points Adam, as usual.
November 4th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
#31 Great point.