Back and forth he goes:
Crist enraged conservatives in February when he stood with President Obama at a pro-stimulus rally in Fort Myers. But Crist recently told CNN “I didn’t endorse it. I didn’t even have a vote on the darned thing. But I understood that it was going to pass and I wanted to be able to utilize it for the benefit of my fellow Floridians.”
Today, after an appearance at a joint meeting of the state Board of Education and the Board of Governors for the state’s higher education system, Crist was asked about his position on the stimulus.
“I support it. I think it was important to take it. All of my fellow governors did so,” Crist told reporters at The Scripps Research Institute.
“….We would have had to let go 20,000 school teachers if we didn’t have that. My belief always has been that Florida deserves her fair share. And it’s helping our economy. Without those additional funds we would have a much more difficult time maintaining not only our economy but job growth and job retention.”
Asked if he would have voted for stimulus bill if he were a Senator, Crist replied: “I would have voted for a different form. But I think it’s pretty clear I supported the concept.”
Look up the word “endorse” on Dictionary.com, and you find “support” as one of the definitions. While Gov. Crist has many strengths as an elected official and candidate, we can safely exclude strength of conviction and consistency from them.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I’m sure the 20,000 school teacher number will be added to the ’saved jobs’ by Obama’s math wizzards.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
cr,
You’ve got the math all wrong. If Crist says 20,000 it’ll be counted as 150,000 by the geniuses in Washington.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
And at the risk of sounding like our most optimistic and enthusiastic commentator………
THIS COULD BE A GAME CHANGER!!!!
One of the biggest things that sunk Kerry in ‘04 was his infamous, “I actually voted for the $80billion before I voted against it” because right out of the horse’s mouth was confirmed Independent voters’ main misgiving about Kerry.
Crist just did the same thing, just not as succinctly. “I actually supported the stimulus, before I opposed it, before I supported it.”
Anyway, he’s on record RE-supporting a plan that 90% of Republicans oppose. Good luck, Charlie. A new Rubio ad is being written as we speak.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
BTW, is “resupporting” a word?
I think we just invented a new word just for our friend Charlie!!!
November 12th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
He’s really rattled isn’t he?
Its surprising, he surely needs to go into his shell, and keep raising funds. Then start highlighting where he is conservative (pro guns, pro life, etc). He’s not a DeMint conservative, but he’s hardly John Kerry.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
JayPe,
John Kerry in the sense of being a soulless flip-flopper.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
The Florida Senate race is strange. There’s so many gubernatorial and senate races in the country that desperately need a good GOP nominee, and yet in Florida, we have two excellent candidates running for the same seat…
Crist should have run for reelection, or Rubio should have waited to challenge Bill Nelson in 2012.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
MWS, sorry I wrote #5 without updating & reading your #3. I meant he’s no liberal.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
……or Crist could have retired……. Hell, he’s already in Florida.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
#9 LOL
November 12th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
I’m surprised Crist didn’t angle for an Admin post. After all, that would prove Obama’s bonefides more than his other GOP appointments – a bit like Huntsman really.
And it would continue the storyline of the moderate purge. I guess there were no decent vacancies.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Every single Republican senator also supported the concept of a stimulus package, albeit in a different form. There was near-unanimous backing by GOPers (Specter included) for a $440 billion bill that would’ve focused on extending unemployment and food stamps benefits, shovel-ready infrastructure spending and tax cuts.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Aron,
What about how Crist reponded, “I support it,” when reporters asked him about THE stimulus – the one actually signed into law?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
He may be dithering on the stimulus, at least we know for sure that he’s straight. No doubt about that. He’s not wavering about that one bit.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Jaype,
Coulda’ been the ambassador to Greece. That would be a pretty cush retirement too. You deliver one speech a year expressing our regret over the difficult situation in Cyprus, and you spend the other 364 days chasing boys on the beach.
Does he/did he actually harbor Presidential ambitions?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Some of the criticism directed at Crist over the stimulus is a little disingenious.
His decision to accept stimulus funding is ultimately a short sighted one though understandable IMO (covering budget shortfalls and whatnot) but he’s tacking mostly a pragmatic tune on it. “It was going to pass, and at least partially helpful, so I figured I’d make use of it.”
November 12th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Aron,
“Crist was asked about his position on the stimulus.
“I support it. I think it was important to take it. All of my fellow governors did so,” Crist told reporters at The Scripps Research Institute.
“….We would have had to let go 20,000 school teachers if we didn’t have that……”
November 12th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
MPC,
I’ll take the position that others have cited: I can understand accepting the stimulus after it passed, but ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING for it? That’s another story.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
MPC,
No, he went beyond that. He supported it. As he said repeatedly. It wasn’t just about trying to get his taxpayers’ money back in some form. He supported it.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
I can completely understand governors lobbying to get as much funding as possible for their states after the package passed (after all, that would essentially equate to them maximizing the returns their constituents would receive for their tax dollars), but I CANNOT approve of a governor publicly arguing in favor of the bill before it passed.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Republican governors had three basic approaches to the Stimulus:
Sanford: I oppose the stimulus, and will not take any funding. Now where’s my passport?
Pawlenty, Palin, and every other Republican governor but one: I oppose the stimulus, and urge our Congressmen to vote it down, but it would be a betrayal of our constituents to not recoup their tax dollars to do some kind of good.
Crist: Give me a hug, Barrack! Youda’ man!!!!
November 12th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Your right on that count, Crist has done some revisionism as to his original stance on it. I just said “some”, not “all” criticism. He’s still far too tied to narrowminded political concerns to take a good position and show how it’d be beneficial.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
MPC, Then how do you justify the hug on the stage? Doesn’t strike me as just a pragmatist willing to accept the pork. My guess is that you’d join the Guv at the zoo in the RINO quarters & you’d have company….
Conservatives must get behind Marco Rubio!
November 12th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
gatorgop,
You obviously haven’t been here very long. MPC is hardly a “RINO’ unless you want a 10% party. He’s actually one of the more thoughtful commentators here (though occasionally wrong).
November 12th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I think more (good) moderates need to be taking the McCain approach for next year. This would include Crist if he did not have a very strong challenger in Marco Rubio – don’t poke movement conservatives at all even if you disagree on an issue here or there (Lindsey Graham is an example of someone who isn’t having to worry), and focus on areas where your concerns, and those of the conservative movement, mirror the general electorate.
Kirk, Fiorina, Whitman, etc need to start talking about deficit reduction, wise use of tax dollars, support for local businesses and programs that need a congressman to back them and whatnot to prevent a more conservative but less qualified candidate from riding an wave next year in the primary only to blow the generals
November 12th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Kevin’s comments illustrate the problems within the GOP. This is what the Tea Parties & townhalls are about. Conservatives can NOT think that Charlie Crist is a good candidate. He is NOT! In the Senate he would be persuaded by Obama to support radical judges, extravagant spending, illegal aliens, and who knows what else. Very simply… he’s a RINO! And if you can’t understand that, you’re not a Conservative!
November 12th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Good job, posters! Especially, MWS
We’re not only taking back the White House…
but tons of seats, too!!!
Plus the Republicans are reclaiming this song:
“Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let’s sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again
Altogether shout it now
There’s no one
Who can doubt it now
So let’s tell the world about it now
Happy days are here again!!!”
November 12th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
gator,
Kevin’s a Democrat.
Like I said, you obviously haven’t been here long….
November 12th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
It seems to me that I remember it not being quite so cut and dried as what MWS describes for Palin. I wasn’t there, but from what it sounded from the chit chat on here is that Palin was trying to have her cake and eat it too on the stimulus. As I recall, she was lobbying for funds for Alaska, while simulataneously claiming she was against it. I think several others more or less did that too, so she wasn’t alone.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
gatorgop,
If Palin hugged Obama would that make her a “RINO”? Crist is a well-known nice guy, at least from what I’ve read here (I don’t live in Florida personally), so that sounds in line with who he is. He’s probably quite incapable in that situation of anything else.
And as MWS noted, outside of immigration policy I really don’t break at all with conservatism in America. I do, however, break with and criticize its tone and direction from time to time. I most definitely do not believe in a “purist” conservatism or Republican Party. I think people ultimately value leadership and results, more than ideology.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I’ll go one further. In 2006, there were two top-tier GOP candidates too. There were also two big statewide races that year, governor and Senate, with Nelson’s Senate seat being one of the few pickup opportunities for the GOP. Instead of going into a backroom and settling who would go for which seat, they challenged each other in a rather contested primary.
So instead of a competitive Senate race, Katherine Harris gave up her safe House seat (which flipped to Democrat without its incumbant btw) to get spanked by the weak Sen. Nelson by 22 points.
And now Crist wants the Senate seat he could have had 3 years ago.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I break with conservative dogma on immigration. I break with the neo-cons on interventionism and nation building, and I’m a protectionist.
I live on a pretty lonely island, really……
November 12th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
gator,
My point is, I’m sure you’ll be welcomed here as long as you’re not a troll, a mindless cheerleader, or a dishonest shill. But I’d suggest before you blow in like the Holy Inquisition delivering anathemas against specific commentators, you get the lay of the land first.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
33. …mindful, honest nonshilling requirements here might cost us a few Romney posters. ; )
November 12th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
gator,
So, I support fiscal conservatism, debt reduction, low taxes, free trade, business investment, market-based healthcare reform, a strong and proactive defense, realist foreign policy except in cases of an attack on our country (more Reagan, less Bush), working with our allies as more important than trying to appease enemies, large restrictions on abortion, am against gay marriage, etc etc
But I’m in favor of an amnesty program for illegal immigrants and think we should end the practice by protecting our borders better (though that will never be perfect) and increasing guest worker programs and easing legal immigration for individuals and families that can meet minimal qualifications.
Would I not qualify as a conservative then?
I do think Crist is a decent candidate marred by a record of some political convenience. Evidently most conservatives in Florida think the same way at this point. Conservatives shouldn’t turn him in to such a bogeyman. But Rubio’s great, and the race is entirely his to lose – he’s got the potential to far exceed Crist.
MWS,
A protectionist in favor of relaxed immigration? You sir are one of a kind
November 12th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
MPC,
“A protectionist in favor of relaxed immigration? You sir are one of a kind”
Indeed. I’m an amnesty-favoring Buchananite.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
MIKE,
I didn’t say it……….
November 12th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“I live on a pretty lonely island, really……” I think we could send you a set of Romney action dolls to play with. Including the pet dog.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Dan,
Does the dog come with the family station wagon?
November 12th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
……that was one of Romney’s goofy moments that made me like him more, actually……
November 12th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
35. MPC, you should run for office, my friend. Sounds pretty good. Free trade though goes for ALL countries; products and services – in and out… : )
November 12th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
That remarkably wrongheaded position alone makes one question. I must be honest.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
MWS, in an attempt to update Romney’s image to being green friendly, the wagon has been retired in favor of a Prius. It is really quite amazing to see the whole Romney family pop out of it.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Oh, and the dog comes with a mix and match set of bling.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Thomas,
Why? It’s pro-family. Crossing a border illegally is hardly grounds for tearing up a life, a family, or a community for an otherwise honest, hard working, and law abiding person.
And outside of politics, hispanics (since that is mainly who we’re talking about here) are very conservative. Inside politics, I think they could come to our side, if we had fewer Tom Tancredos and more MPCs. But either way, I think hispanics are good for the culture.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Dan,
A Prius? There he goes pandering again……….
November 12th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Burr leads all challengers:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_1112.pdf
November 12th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Wait a second. MWS is pro-amnesty? Isn’t he a Buchananite? That’s strange.
Almost as weird as my pro-life position. (considering my very liberal stance on most other issues)
November 12th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
You gotta be kidding about Mitt’s new ride…
Chuck Norris does curls with two Priuses.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Kevin,
Yes. A pro-amnesty Buchananite. But since he and I are rabid Catholics who mourn the (near) passing of the Tridentine Mass, I think if I had him for a weekend, I could convert him.
And pro-life is the natural liberal position for liberals who genuinely care about the helpless and downtrodden, as opposed to the ones who just hate mankind.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
You can have your family in your native country. You can build your life there as well. What you cannot do is expect America to ignore its own laws because the first thing you did upon entering is ignore its citizens’ wishes.
It’s that type of attitude that will ensure that Hispanics go to Democrats. If we had a proper immigration policy, Hispanics would consider themselves individuals. Instead, you insist on pointing them to the voting booth thinking only of the color of their skin. Then blame those who treat them as individuals for their acting like a minority and voting Democrat.
It’s your fault Hispanics are going Democrat. The Tancredos of the world are trying to fix your mistakes.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Don’t forget the tray of green Jell-O Dan! And since you’re on that lonely island Romney’s five sons will probably brave sharks, pirates, a hurricane, and Mike Huckabee on a speedboat powered by Chuck Norris to get it all to you.
Note for the Rombots: I actually have nothing against Romney at this point at all.
-”MWS, in an attempt to update Romney’s image to being green friendly, the wagon has been retired in favor of a Prius. It is really quite amazing to see the whole Romney family pop out of it.”
Oh boy, if Huckabee gets word of Romney owning a Prius he’ll never hear the end of it.
-”35. MPC, you should run for office, my friend. Sounds pretty good. Free trade though goes for ALL countries; products and services – in and out… : )”
Of course. I’ve lived in Latin America for a couple of years and they get the shaft with free trade some of the time just like we do on a few things with China. What it essentially relies on is comparative advantage, hence the need for America to be relatively better at producing some products than their trade partners (agricultural products shouldn’t be our only strong export). What we need to do is invest considerably in promising new industries that America can become a worldwide leader in thanks to a little investment by the taxpayers. It wouldn’t be that hard, just require a bit of foresight. So long as both countries are able to increase their exports to one another, though (ideally it should be an equal increase or as close as possible), there is a huge net benefit.
And Thomas, on immigration:
Besides the economic advantages which any one of my more libertarian compatriots could bring up (in short they are a huge plus), all it takes to favor more immigration is to actually know immigrant families. They are natural Republicans and by and large great citizens. Having lived near lots of immigrants I really can’t imagine that restricting them is a good thing. Forcing them to continue to enter illegally and racially marginalizing them will create on the other hand a permanent social separation akin to that which slavery produced between whites and blacks. Immigrants should come here and be welcomed as new Americans, because by my experience that’s what 100% of them want. They love our country.
And listen to yourself, honestly. Nativism is about the most bitter philosophy on the planet. Hence it’s a huge dud electorally. Bush did quite well, better than any other Republican had, among minorities by simply extending a hand to them, speaking to that will to succeed that all immigrants have. And since fixing illegal immigration via deportation is completely inviable, why not take care of the problem by giving these folks a chance to do what they really want – legalize as American citizens – then secure our border and let folks enter more easily through legal means if they so wish so as to stamp out illegal immigration as a problem altogether.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
PEOPLE WHO VOTE THEIR SKIN COLOR ARE NATURAL DEMOCRATS.
Don’t you people understand this?
November 12th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Thomas,
“What you cannot do is expect America to ignore its own laws because the first thing you did upon entering is ignore its citizens’ wishes.”
It’s not a question of “ignoring laws.” It’s a question of making the punishment fit the crime. We don’t shoot people for speeding. Neither should we tear up the livelihood and family of a long standing illegal immigrant simply for crossing the border illegally, especially when it is well known that we have been looking the other way and American business has been enticing them for decades.
(Thomas) “If we had a proper immigration policy, Hispanics would consider themselves individuals. Instead, you insist on pointing them to the voting booth thinking only of the color of their skin.”
First off, it has nothing to do with skin color. Hispanics can be white (Cameron Diaz) Brown (Albert Pujols) or black (Roberto Clemente).
Secondly, they are far less likely to “think as a group” (whatever that means) if they can arrive and live as individuals, as opposed to clamoring for amnesty as a group. Giving them a path to citizenship hastens assimilation.
(Thomas) “It’s your fault Hispanics are going Democrat.”
Yes, my power has grown exponentially these past several years. Thanks for noticing……
November 12th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Thomas,
“PEOPLE WHO VOTE THEIR SKIN COLOR ARE NATURAL DEMOCRATS.”
With all do respect, you sound like an idiot when you keep harping on skin color. “Hispanic” does not designate any skin color. It is an ethnicity. When you keep bringing up “skin color” it really makes me question whether you’ve ever seen a Hispanic on TV, let alone met one or gotten to know him.
We can disagree and debate this issue, but “skin color” has nothing to do with it.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Thomas,
No, they don’t, simple as that. You read into false ideas about immigrants that aren’t true. Were this true, wouldn’t that mean that Republicans should simply nominate conservative minorities, as they would maintain all the Republican vote and add to it their own minority? This argument holds as much water as the argument Democrats run that much of the white vote are ignorant racists that will always vote Republican.
So long as the Republican Party isn’t going on nativist rants against immigrants and trying to keep them out (which just makes them turn to the Democrats), they actually find plenty to like about us. We hold their values, their desire to see economic success and upward mobility, their work ethic. If immigrants feel welcome in our party it’s quite a natural home for them, as opposed to the special-interest dominated Democrats. There is no reason that today’s immigrants can’t become as natural of voters for our party as yesterday’s did – the Irish and Italians, who were likewise hated for reasons both racial and economic – once they achieved the middle-class American dream.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
How about listening to yourself? Jumping straight to charges of nativism without the slightest clue. You think you’re doing Republicans and the majority of Americans who are clearthinking and realize that mass illegal behavior is wrong any good by throwing around false charges of nativism?
You can be in favor of immigration without being in favor of illegal immigration. In fact it’s the most common position out there.
However, your pandering plan is worse than a political dud. It’s a generational political dud. You aid and abbet Democrats in conditioning Hispanics in thinking of themselves as a voting bloc instead of as individuals, and they’ll vote socialist for decades. If a real immigration reform bill had been passed in 2007, McCain would have gotten more Hispanic votes than he did in with his bass ackwards immigration policy.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Thomas,
It’s not about “conditioning” people or treating them like voting blocs or trying to make them think we like them or don’t.
It’s about doing the right thing for real life human beings, with real life kids, and real life wives, and real life hopes, fears, and dreams, created, loved and sustained by a real life God.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
It has everything to do with it because your type of thinking makes it so. You don’t treat people as individuals. You treat them as a voting bloc. You work to make it so that they think more as a voting bloc. You gift wrap a new demographic for the Democrats.
Good work.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
And yet the two of you keep claiming how natural Republicans they are. Something that seems more like a stereotype to me than anything else. It’s also wishful thinking.
The law sometimes breaks up real life human beings. That’s called consequences of your actions. They knew what they were doing when they did it.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Thomas,
“It has everything to do with it because your type of thinking makes it so.”
No YOU are the one treating them as a bloc, whether intentionally or not. You are the one who is effectively saying “I don’t want THOSE people, no matter how long they’ve been here. No matter what kind of lives they lead, or what kind of roots they’ve planted.” Nobody says, “Gosh, I wish the ITALIANS, or the IRISH, or the POLES, or the GERMANS never came here (even though people did at the time). So what conclusion are Hispanics left with? That people like YOU don’t want them, AS A GROUP.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Thomas,
Bottom line, Hispanics don’t see themselves as a PROBLEM in America. They see themselves as an asset. And they are. But as long as you and the Tom Tancredos of the world treat them as a problem, they will naturally think of themselves as a bloc, because that is how you are marginalizing them.
Give them a path to be citizens, make some kind of restitution for their (minor) crime, and let them be individual Americans. Stop trying to keep them out as a bloc. Stop acting like they as a group are ruining our country. Stop trying to change the rules after we’ve effectively turned a blind eye for decades. America is better than that. We don’t (as a country) entice people to come over here by ignoring laws, and them try to deport them after 20 years because some people don’t like the way they might end up voting.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Thomas,
“The law sometimes breaks up real life human beings. That’s called consequences of your actions.”
But WE (directly or indirectly) MAKE THE LAW. If speeding were a capital offense, would you simply shrug and say, “it’s the law, so it must be just. If they didn’t want to be executed, they shouldn’t have been speeding.”
Surely you can recognize that a law can be just or unjust, and likewise that a punishment can be just or unjust? If you don’t think the law should ever change, and what is is always right, why are you on this site?
November 12th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Thomas,
Basically, we argue that immigrants should be made into successful middle-class Americans (who tend to vote Republican obviously) as soon as possible. And that immigrants WANT to be successful middle-class Americans. That’s what they see America as being, and they want to have that too. The only way they will vote Democrat, is if they feel that those opportunities are unattainable. If they think white middle-class America is kicking them around and doesn’t want them (which in some part it is, unfortunately), that’s a big divider.
-”If a real immigration reform bill had been passed in 2007, McCain would have gotten more Hispanic votes than he did in with his bass ackwards immigration policy.”
McCain also had to deal with the fact that he had to represent a party of certain ever so welcoming individuals that had notably gone to war with Hispanic immigrants the year prior
It’s well documented by Hispanic outreach efforts that had done so well under Bush had their hands tied in the campaign, to McCain’s distress:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/they_didnt_let_mccain_be_mccai.html
And honestly, do you really believe that people that have a chance to succeed and live as Americans are going to vote in blocs? People that feel by and large accepted into mainstream American society? I don’t see it, not at all. Economic mobility and an acceptance by mainstream American culture are all they need.
It is anti-immigration (because most are against legal immigrants too), anti-amnesty Republicans that give the Democrats all the ammunition they need. The common perception among many immigrants after the immigration revolt by conservatives is unfortunately that white conservatives and the Republican Party at large do not like nonwhite, non European people in the country, and that Republicans like Bush and McCain are by and large powerless to racist elements in the conservative movement for fear of offending them. The Democrats thus gain their votes as the party that will look out for them against racist sentiment.
The anti-immigrant, anti-amnesty position drives immigrants to the Democrats by preventing their acceptance into mainstream American society. If you we welcome immigrants as Americans like Bush did, they’ll repay the favor in kind.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
MPC,
“And honestly, do you really believe that people that have a chance to succeed and live as Americans are going to vote in blocs? People that feel by and large accepted into mainstream American society?”
Exactly, is there an Irish voting bloc anymore? An Italian bloc? A German bloc? Swedish? Balkan? Polish?
No, the one big exception for a long standing group is blacks, and that is largely because our laws and our society have treated them as a block for damn near forever, whether through slavery, Jim Crow, de facto segregation, busing, affirmative action, etc……..
November 12th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
They’re a problem and an asset. Crowded hospials are forced to treat illegal immigrants in border towns. The welfare state is forced to allocate resources to illegal aliens at the taxpayers’ expense.
On the other hand, productive Hispanics do work on the cheap for business owners as they assimilate and become educated. Over time Hispanic immigrants are just as much of an asset as any other ethnic group.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I don’t want lawbreakers. It is amazing to me that the first step to American citizenship in the two of your minds is breaking the law.
Had no intention of doing so. They can come in with the proportion. Same as Asians, Europeans, etc.
The wink-nod method of enforcement caused the problem in the first place. Now your type of thinking will require pain to put right. Either that or just surrender the borders forever (afterall, the next wave will be setting the same roots and will be just as painful to remove).
Personally, I prefer a plan where a one-time temporary work visa set up at a staggered schedule and otherwise true workplace enforcement. That seems to be the most logical plan.
But just saying that everyone gets to stay is effectively ignoring the law. That’s wrong.
You’re the one who brought up how they’d vote as a reason for policy. Not me.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Sure I can. But there’s nothing unjust about a proper immigration policy.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Immigrants also (and always have) revitalize American society and prevent it from being old, childless, and declining as in the case in most of Europe. And unlike ethnically homogenous Europe, we have a long established tradition of revitalizing our population via immigrant assimilation and the extension of American citizenship. Were it not for recent Latino immigration we would already have fallen into the same circumstances and lost much of our vitality and workforce.
And the quicker they gain entry into mainstream society, the quicker they’ll lose the “voting bloc” status and come to see themselves as common Americans.
-”But just saying that everyone gets to stay is effectively ignoring the law. That’s wrong.”
Reagan did it himself, and somehow the world didn’t end. Heck, seems like conservatives didn’t even mind much back then.
The vast majority of illegals are willing to pay a fine for having come illegally in order to normalize their status. That seems like a reasonable compromise on things. After all that’s what most common lawbreaking gets in this country, isn’t it? It satisfies the law, and gives immigrants a chance to get a real start here in America as legal immigrants and soon, citizens. What happens haphazardly to illegals now, random deportations, penalties to employers that had been allowed to hire them for so long, and separation of families is what’s wrong and reflects poorly on us as a nation.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Thomas,
For what it’s worth- since you brought up the skin color issue- most Hispanics consider themselves “white,” just like most Republicans.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Nonsense. There is no reason that the U.S. couldn’t bring in legal immigrants, and do it fairly.
And Reagan was wrong then too. Of course he accepted the silly notion that amnesty would then be followed by actual enforcement. And, just as I noted above, the next generation moved in and it was just as tragic to unroot them as the group before (except there are more illegals now and the problem has only compounded).
We provide amnesty today, we’ll just be in the same position again tomorrow.
A fine that’s nowhere near the cost of legally coming here. Sounds like a discount for illegal behavior to me.
Agreed. Provide them with my one-time work visa. Strictly enforce workplace laws. Give people the time and day they know they must put their affairs in order by. Get their families set properly.
It hardly sounds horrible to me.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Amnesty also helps with national security. Legal citizens and residents are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement. After we secure the borders and give the otherwise law abiding already here citizenship, then we can zero in on the remainders, where there must be a problem. Amnesty would be a boon for law enforcement and anti-terrorism efforts. They don’t have to run around wasting time deporting productive people, and they know that people they can’t identify as here legally are far more likely to be actual bad guys.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Good night y’all. God bless.
Rubio for Senate.
Pawlenty ‘12.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
MWS, Frankly, I don’t care if you welcome me to this forum or not! Here’s the point…If you think that Crist is a Conservative, then YOU are not one!
November 12th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
And….why would a terrorist pass up this generous offer?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
-”And Reagan was wrong then too. Of course he accepted the silly notion that amnesty would then be followed by actual enforcement. And, just as I noted above, the next generation moved in and it was just as tragic to unroot them as the group before (except there are more illegals now and the problem has only compounded).
We provide amnesty today, we’ll just be in the same position again tomorrow.”
Seems to me then that all these immigrants that come illegally, since we are essentially in agreement on the value of immigration overall I think, simply need an easier process to get into America. So we can do an amnesty and help out immigrants through our policy so that neither they nor us need go through the ordeal of large-scale illegal immigration again.
Any immigrants that try to get in illegally with a liberal immigration policy in place clearly are shady characters trying to dodge the law, and can then be deported without much worry.
-”A fine that’s nowhere near the cost of legally coming here. Sounds like a discount for illegal behavior to me.”
I don’t know for sure, but just how much does an immigrant have to pay the US government to come? I doubt it’s going to be much at all, most of the cost is transportation and reestablishment of permanent residence, which they already payed. If it costs $200 to come legally, for example, we can set a $400 fine to clear their status and legalize them fully.
-”Agreed. Provide them with my one-time work visa. Strictly enforce workplace laws. Give people the time and day they know they must put their affairs in order by. Get their families set properly.
It hardly sounds horrible to me.”
It’s certainly more appropriate than the current approach, but the task of moving out millions of people from the country even in such a fashion is infeasible politically and counterproductive to throw out millions of established working-class Americans. We can do a fine, let them come clean on their status, and after some time be able to acquire American citizenship
November 12th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
I’d still like to see a fence finished on the Mexican border.
The last thing we need are more unskilled immigrants in America.
If Mexican doctors, scientists or engineers want to come I welcome them.
What we don’t need is more of the unskilled illegal immigrants driving down wages for working class Americans.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:03 am
-”MWS, Frankly, I don’t care if you welcome me to this forum or not! Here’s the point…If you think that Crist is a Conservative, then YOU are not one!”
Well, I hope you enjoy your membership in the Constitutionalist Party.
I hear they are pretty strict as to who gets nominated, they don’t have to go through this whole business of “coalitions” and appealing to voters outside of your party and all that fun stuff us Republicans are forced to tolerate.
Crist doesn’t speak for me on a number of issues. But I sure as heck would rather he who agrees with us 80-90% of the time on the major issues be with us, then with our foes.
We can support Rubio without thinking that Crist is the antithesis of conservatism, which he’s not.
“And….why would a terrorist pass up this generous offer?”
I believe most terrorists have an easy enough job getting in here legally. So long as he hasn’t spoken much about his radical views he’ll look just like any other honest Muslim immigrant – such was the case in 9/11, was it not?
If a terrorist has been able to cross illegally from Mexico, I doubt he’s going to be too worried about legalization. He’s already in the country and can do what he wants in here. Amnesty recipients would get the same treatment any applicant for immigration would, of course – any run-ins with the law on record and he won’t be getting anything.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Reagan was wrong on amnesty & knew it…Conservatives recognize that critical error! Follow the law. Come in legally without tricks. Then be Americans , not Mexicans living in the US, which is NOT the case today!
November 13th, 2009 at 12:16 am
MPC Glad you’re in charge here. Now is the time to support ONE candidate! It’s either the Conservative or the FAKE Conservative. Crist isn’t a liberal but he’s far too close for my taste. You can support an Obama hugger who called to congratulate him before the votes were counted…not me! (Palin DIDN’T DO IT!)
November 13th, 2009 at 12:21 am
If I thought for a moment that amnesty would come with actually fixing the problem, I’d take the deal. Problem is, I think it’s just a cycle. And I think any attempt to say “no” will just result in more lawbreaking. When I say a fair immigration policy, that precludes giving people favoratism because they happen to live nearby. I don’t believe in citizens of countries such as Mexico getting favoritism in our immigration policy just because they’re nearby. As such, the immigration from a few specific countries would be dramatically lower than it is today (while immigrants from most countries would be dramatically higher).
Also, I very much disagree with your being in favor of massive work visa programs aimed at cheap labor. A cheap easily exploitable labor force is not a goal I want in my immigration policy.
Citizenship is a non-starter. As I stated earlier, breaking the law should never ever, ever be the first step on the road to citizenship.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:34 am
-”Reagan was wrong on amnesty & knew it…Conservatives recognize that critical error! Follow the law. Come in legally without tricks. Then be Americans , not Mexicans living in the US, which is NOT the case today!”
They can be Americans and want to be Americans. Let them just pay a fee to come clean and get legal status. Integrate them into our country as Americans, treat them as Americans, and they will be Americans.
Honestly its no different from the Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, etc. As soon as they become accepted in American society they’ll stop living off in their tight-knit immigrant groups and have children that see themselves first as Americans.
“MPC Glad you’re in charge here. Now is the time to support ONE candidate! It’s either the Conservative or the FAKE Conservative. Crist isn’t a liberal but he’s far too close for my taste. You can support an Obama hugger who called to congratulate him before the votes were counted…not me! (Palin DIDN’T DO IT!)”
Heaven forbid she touch Obama, eh?
It’s more important that we choose our folks based on how good they are as leaders really, not based on ideology alone. And certainly not based on if they hugged Obama or not. Being cordial and friendly even to an adversary is in my opinion a greater strength than it is a weakness. Crist himself is a moderate conservative who fits pretty well into our party, he even got an A from CATO last year which should say something as to his fiscal conservatism (despite the stimulus support he’s overall quite solid). More importantly, though, he advocated the stimulus as good knowing full well the long-term negative effects of such a policy. Bush and Co played the same game. That’s why I can’t support him in all honesty, because he’s shown a lack of sense for the results of his actions
Doug,
We do need some unskilled immigrants. Of course a higher ratio skilled/unskilled is ideal, but unskilled immigrants tend to be just as entrepreneurial as more skilled ones (and thus economically mobile to some degree). We should probably restrict it somewhat, if only because an underclass living at barely viable wages hurts our country, but if we didn’t have some level of unskilled immigration I think the economic repercussions of a tight labor market would be fairly steep.
-”If I thought for a moment that amnesty would come with actually fixing the problem, I’d take the deal. Problem is, I think it’s just a cycle. And I think any attempt to say “no” will just result in more lawbreaking. When I say a fair immigration policy, that precludes giving people favoratism because they happen to live nearby. I don’t believe in citizens of countries such as Mexico getting favoritism in our immigration policy just because they’re nearby. As such, the immigration from a few specific countries would be dramatically lower than it is today (while immigrants from most countries would be dramatically higher).”
Hm, that’s a good point really. That makes it clear just why putting up an effective border wall would be so important in coordination with amnesty, because we can’t have unrestricted legal immigration numbers, you’re right. There’d have to be a way to limit folks. A more acceptable proposal would be perhaps to increase legal immigration from other countries, whose numbers and economic impact would remove some of the incentive for mass Mexican immigration.
“Citizenship is a non-starter. As I stated earlier, breaking the law should never ever, ever be the first step on the road to citizenship.”
It would seem to make the most sense for folks that have lived in America for years and have established a permanent residence and family here, however. And the violation in light of the circumstance can really not be seen as more serious than a minor infraction, certainly not a criminal case. In America fines take care of those just fine and there’s no permanent issue.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Like the illegals who can’t even read & write their own language, let alone learn more than the lowest form of communication in English. That’s who is coming across the border. We need those people like we need Obama! Educated immigrants…legal immigrants only….
November 13th, 2009 at 12:53 am
I really doubt that’s the case for 99% of them. I’m all for educated immigrants too, but most unskilled immigrants are decent family people who know they’ll find a much better life in America than in Mexico. That many of them should come here (not too many as to deplete our ability to welcome them, but still plenty) is perfectly fine.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Moderate conservative LOL You’re full of word games , but mostly you’re full of shit. The GOP has too many like you… no real principles. Bet you were a big McCain supporter!
November 13th, 2009 at 1:30 am
You know it
Yes, in fact I was. First with Rudy, but he sunk, and I went with McCain. But as far as word games go, who is playing what, when the main accusation I hear against Crist from you is that he hugged Obama?
Is that how we find a good candidate, based on how he hugs Obama?
gator in reality the conservative movement has far too many people like you, people who love their conservative principles to the point where they think that it’s an all or nothing game, who’d rather take 0% than get 50% now, and work for 50% later, people who are far too focused on what ally they can axe next, than on what ally they can bring in, and whose fanatical devotion to their ideology goes far beyond what the voters actually want. We’ve had some failures of leadership in the party in recent years but y’all aren’t even focused on the issues we failed on – only about how conservative you sound.
I don’t think the GOP should be a moderate party – it’s got to be a place for both moderates and conservatives in order to succeed. I’m conservative on almost every issue in the book as I said before, but your way of doing conservatism is a disservice to the whole party. No one votes on ideology, they vote on issues, so whether we support the moderate or the conservative in an election, we’d better support the one who can lead the way forward. And there are too many crazy conservatives nowadays that have no idea how to lead because they’ve convinced themselves via Glenn Beck that if they just repeat a list of conservative ideas everyone will vote for them and they will be awesome governors/Senators/etc.
In the end its usually stupid to argue because we are going to agree on things in the end. I’ve ended up supporting Marco Rubio, Christie the moderate conservative still got the party unified for his win in New Jersey. We aren’t going to support candidates that don’t share much with us ideologically, and we aren’t going to support conservatives that have no capability as leaders. Any other candidate we’ll end up backing without much fuss at all.
So enough with the crazy talk, and stop betraying your principles before accusing me of not having any
November 13th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Crist (much like Kris) doesn’t know whether he is Arthur or Martha.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:56 am
gator,
Dude, why all the hostility? You’re doing an extraordinary job of reinforcing the liberal stereotype that conservatives hate everyone who is not a clone of themselves. MPC laid out some principles (addressed specifically to you) in #35. Just because they are not 100% YOUR principles, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any.
So far almost everything you’ve written has been either an accusation, name-calling, a stereotype, or bumper sticker sloganeering. The two people you’re most hostile to support Rubio. So why don’t you stop being a useful idiot for the liberals, and either debate your side like an adult, or step off?
My guess is you got turned on to politics through talk radio within the last couple years, and that most of what you know about government and politics comes through Beck, Rush, Hannity, Levin, and Savage. Am I right?
November 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
gatorgop,
Welcome to Race4. We have quite an eclectic group here. We have a wide range of contributors. We even have a Liberal Democrat or two to keep us honest.
A few pointers:
(1)Our’s is not an echo-chamber site. That is a very conscience decision on our part. If you expect everyone to agree with you, or otherwise desire unity in thought and opinion, there are plenty of other sites out there willing and waiting to accept you.
(2)Most of us post here because we like to have our opinions and ideas challenged intellectually and logically. If you cannot stand being challenged by people who will publicly pick apart your less-than-carefully-thought-out ideas, or if you are incapable of doing it yourself to someone else, then you likely won’t last long.
(3)People who throw around terms like “RINO”, “True Conservative”, “Real American”, etc. generally don’t last very long here. Those and similar terms are virtually meaningless except as “I like him”, or “I don’t like him”. Hey, we can’t even agree what the word “Conservative” means, and we are a conservative site! Since they are so imprecise, their use generally fails to impress anyone other than to advertise to all and sundry that the user is taking intellectual shortcuts and likely doesn’t really know what he is talking about.
(4)Insults are like strong spice. A little goes a long way. If all you can do is insult your opponent when he makes a point, it does two things. (a)It shows to the whole world that you are losing the argument. (b)It identifies you as someone not worth having a conversation with. We all know that the heat of the argument can and does get the better of the best of us. So we do tolerate occasional insults. However if someone proves that all they want to do is pick fights and insult people, they will get banned.
Once again, welcome to the party. I hope you will find a home here.
Mark B. Lowe
November 13th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
R epublicans (and)
I ndependents (united to)
N ullify
O bama (’s re election in ‘12!)
November 13th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
M&M.#90,
I like it!