Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    137

    House GOP's Back Is to the Wall on Borders

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... s-politics

    House GOP’s Back Is to the Wall on Borders
    Many Republicans say a softened immigration stand is unthinkable. Others fear the political fallout if there's no deal after a long debate.

    More news stories on Common Sense in High Places
    Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times, May 25, 2006

    WASHINGTON—Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) just got a wake-up call about the political risks of Congress’ immigration debate. Having been hammered by constituents for his moderate stand on illegal immigration, Souder this month got 7,100 fewer votes in the GOP primary than in 2004, when he ran against the same challenger.

    His experience helps explain why so many House Republicans adamantly oppose any compromise that would allow illegal immigrants to earn legal status. They have concluded it could be political suicide to give ground to the Senate immigration bill, expected to pass today, which would do just that.

    “The mood is so angry, we can’t hold the House with any bill” like that, Souder said. “The Senate bill would be worse than nothing.”

    {snip}

    Souder, one of 17 Republicans to vote against the House bill last year, is not the only GOP lawmaker who has seen political backlash over the issue.

    In Utah, Rep. Chris Cannon faces a serious primary challenge from a political novice because of Cannon’s support for a guest worker program. At the state GOP’s nominating convention this month, Cannon suffered an embarrassing upset when he was outpolled, 52% to 48%, by businessman John Jacob. Because neither candidate won 60% of the vote, they will face off in June.

    In Nebraska, Rep. Tom Osborne—a well-known former college football coach—lost a promising bid to wrest the GOP gubernatorial nomination from incumbent Gov. Dave Heineman. Their differences over immigration played a big part: Osborne supported a state measure to allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities; Heineman vetoed the bill.

    In Idaho’s primary Tuesday, Republicans choosing from a crowded field for an open House seat rejected one candidate—Robert Vasquez, a county commissioner—who had made his name with aggressive efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants. But his presence in the race put pressure on all the other candidates to take a hard line against illegal immigration.

    Some House Republicans think the best political course may be to put off final action on immigration until after the November election. Another strategy would be to craft a compromise that is as strict as the House wants—even if it causes the bill to lose Democratic support in the Senate. If it died, the thinking goes, Republicans could blame the Democrats for blocking border protections.

    It may, however, be hard for Republicans to pass blame, since they are perceived as being in charge of the federal government. And many are eager to counter the view, expressed in public opinion polls showing voters' approval of Congress at a nadir, that lawmakers are not doing enough to solve the nation's most urgent problems.

    "People are looking for a result," said Republican pollster David Winston. "It may take a few weeks, and tempers may wear thin, but there's an understanding that something needs to be produced."

    Inaction, some Republicans warn, also could deal a blow to an already weakened Bush — who saw another big domestic initiative, his Social Security overhaul, run aground on Capitol Hill.

    "If we walk away from this, we will do to Bush on immigration what Democrats did to him on Social Security," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "It would be a signal to the country at large that we as Republicans, who own the whole government, can't solve hard problems."


    Maybe the polititions are starting to get it!!! They better listen to the American people or they may not be able to keep their jobs. I know that when Janet Napolitano comes up for re-election, I won't be voting for her. I also will not be voting for John McCain either, both of which I did vote for before!!!!

  2. #2
    gcaleb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona-for now
    Posts
    59
    “The mood is so angry, we can’t hold the House with any bill” like that, Souder said. “The Senate bill would be worse than nothing.”
    Too bad they don't understand that we don't want nothing. WE WANT ENFORCEMENT!!!

    That seat belonged to Robert Vasquez. It just goes to show you that the Republicans still aren't very serious about changing the current policies. Robert would have stirred things up in good way.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    New Richmond,Wisconsin
    Posts
    609
    Well at least this bunch admit it's poltical suicide if they go along with it.

    That's a step forward.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    12,855
    AZMOM
    LOL.......please post the link

    Thanx
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    12,855
    this is FABULOUS NEWS! It's what we've been fighting for...TO BACK THE HOUSE INTO A CORNER

    However, the tricky thing is going to be not to stall a bill, but to force them to stand by their "talk" {which is dirt cheap} BEFORE the election!
    I don't trust hardly a one of them to lie and play games in order to maintain their seats.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883

    Re: House GOP's Back Is to the Wall on Borders

    His experience helps explain why so many House Republicans adamantly oppose any compromise that would allow illegal immigrants to earn legal status. They have concluded it could be political suicide to give ground to the Senate immigration bill, expected to pass today, which would do just that.

    “The mood is so angry, we can’t hold the House with any bill” like that, Souder said. “The Senate bill would be worse than nothing.”
    And 1 more moves to our side.



    Now IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY and make Dennis Hastert President, Speaker of the House of Representatives and in the line of succession to become President in an impeachment of the Turd Balls.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #7
    Senior Member concernedmother's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    955
    Welcome AZMOMOF2. Let's all hold their feet to the fire! Remember in November!
    <div>"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."
    - Clarence Darrow</div>

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Jezzabell
    Well at least this bunch admit it's poltical suicide if they go along with it.

    That's a step forward.
    I agree, he sees that Nothing is betrter than a BAD BILL.

    I believe I heard Lou Dobbs say, that over the weekend Bill Frist admitted that this Amnesty Bill, was the will of the Senate, and NOT the will of the people.

    Bill Frist you knew that all the long, so why did you go back on your word

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •