Thread: Which candidate would be weakest in passing Amnesty?

Question?
Of the three candidates Obama, Clinton of McCain, who do you think would be the easiest to defeat on new amnesty legislation?

It would be easier for Republicans to unite against a Democrat. If that is the case Clinton or Obama would be easier to defeat. The new president will have to unite Dems and Reps. to pass it, so maybe the best question would be;
Who do you think is the weaker in uniting the politicians in sucessfully passing amnesty?

I think it is Obama, unless those that oppose it become fearfull of being called a "racist" in the era of a black president.

I think we could still defeat amnesty with McCain the same way we did with Bush 2, but the problem is still will Republican politicians go against a Republican President.

And Clinton 2? HMMMM I don't know.

I still say we have a shot at defeating amnesty with any of these people, but the dynamics are still a mystery to me, because we don't know the makeup of the new congress. If I was to bet money on who we could defeat the easiest I would put it on Obama.

What do you think?

greginLA wrote:

I think we could still defeat amnesty with McCain the same way we did with Bush 2, but the problem is still will Republican politicians go against a Republican President.

I don't think McCain will have any better luck changing the minds of those in his party who are against amnesty than Bush did. IMHO, our real problems lies with the U.S. Congress. The Democrats are expected to take more seat in November. Furthermore, Duncan Hunter is retiring and Tancredo is leaving. There are probably others that I'm not aware of. Honestly, the makeup of our Congress worries me more than who is sitting in the Oval Office. We could be in for a very rough ride next year.

As for Obama, the man would be a total disaster for our country. The illegal immigrant issue is my #1 priority, however, there are other important issue that must be considered when voting for a president.

Personally I don't think any....but if I had to pick...it would be Hillary. She folded under the pressure in New York, she has atleast the following of working class whites and some blacks and is aware of the job situations and the fact so many of all races are being pushed out of work because of illegals and outsourcing and need work and even though I haven't looked at her votes concerning English as the official language...she has stated the need to learn English. But this is politics....can't believe anything. She seems to be one that MIGHT come to a compromise to atleast deport the serious criminals before granting an amnesty. McCain wants to join them up in the service while giving them amnesty...and well Obama...I don't see him standing firm on anything but letting the world come on in..

But in all seriousness....none. Pelosi is a pain and if she's not the speaker once a Dem gets in and they have to vote in a Republican....we might stand a better chance. That is according to what my husband explained happens but he's been known to be wrong and I am not well versed on that part, or if that's what happens at all.

But as I said....I don't like any of them and that's just my opinion on just the immigration issue...none of the rest that scares the living bejeebers out of me.

MW you live in North Carolina,
why did it go so heavily for Obama? Was it the Black vote? if so what is the black percentage of the population?

It totaly amazes me how Obama's anti-American preacher, and friends (william Airs) and his wife doesn't bother the Democrat voters. Then again I don't understand the attraction of any of these Presidential candidates.

I agree with MW on the above largely because of the relative importance of Congress.

Remember - all the previous amnesties required passing a law - a new law - to allow the amnesty to go forward. Right now, Congress has voted back the last 2 amnesty tries (in 2006, 2007) from going forward. It is far more important to get pro-enforcement people in Congress than whoever is elected into the WH. And, oh, for the record, I actually think that all 3 top tier candidates are approximately equally bad on the issue - well, for the most part.

Just my two pennies...

Originally Posted by PhredE

It is far more important to get pro-enforcement people in Congress than whoever is elected into the WH.

Off the top of my head, here's a few Congressional pro-enforcement candidates we should support include (feel free to add to this list):

- Lou Barletta (PA)

- Duncan D. Hunter (CA, running for his father's seat)

- Tom McClintock (CA)

And I just read that Jason Chaffetz (from Utah) will be running in a GOP primary against amnesty-loving Chris Cannon. Overall, Chaffretz looks pretty good. Here's his immigration platform:

http://www.jasonforcongress.com/page/page/5678465.htm

Ditto, to the Congressional races. The prevailing analysis in 2007 was that even if C.I.R. got through the Senate it would not get passed in the House. This is what we really need to watch--because even if there is not enough momentum to get a sweeping "reform" through, a badly witten bill with loopholes like Swiss Cheese could be worked out in compromise. My thanks to the Laura Ingraham show for their enlightening (to me) analysis of all the glaring flaws in that 2007 Senate Bill that would have paved the way for 50 million more to come in legally besides what we already have.

And my heartfelt thanks to ALIPAC'ers who constantly manned the phones during those crucial days!!

Maybe extra campaigning in closely contested seats would pay out. That's what Karl Rove did in 2000, isn't it? He concentrated on the most marginal areas in the swing states, especially Florida, and then Ohio in 2004.

Originally Posted by Captainron

The prevailing analysis in 2007 was that even if C.I.R. got through the Senate it would not get passed in the House.

I remember proclaiming exactly this during the amnesty debate. Didn't stop me from joining the effort in calling Washington though. I'm glad we did it. But the House was not going to pass that thing. We have a lot of allies in the House and we need to keep them there, and put some more in. Its the best part of our government.......for whatever that is worth

Originally Posted by crazybird

Personally I don't think any....but if I had to pick...it would be Hillary. She folded under the pressure in New York, she has atleast the following of working class whites and some blacks and is aware of the job situations and the fact so many of all races are being pushed out of work because of illegals and outsourcing and need work and even though I haven't looked at her votes concerning English as the official language...she has stated the need to learn English. But this is politics....can't believe anything. She seems to be one that MIGHT come to a compromise to atleast deport the serious criminals before granting an amnesty. McCain wants to join them up in the service while giving them amnesty...and well Obama...I don't see him standing firm on anything but letting the world come on in..

But in all seriousness....none. Pelosi is a pain and if she's not the speaker once a Dem gets in and they have to vote in a Republican....we might stand a better chance. That is according to what my husband explained happens but he's been known to be wrong and I am not well versed on that part, or if that's what happens at all.

But as I said....I don't like any of them and that's just my opinion on just the immigration issue...none of the rest that scares the living bejeebers out of me.

I agree with you about Hillary...I remember when she folded under pressure. But, I know none of them can be trusted!

We have a lot of allies in the House and we need to keep them there, and put some more in. Its the best part of our government.

Exactly!

Just a thought. If McCain gets elected maybe House Republicans should have a talk with him, right away, to get him squared away on why Amnesty is bad for the US, and why the C.I.R. had soooo many loopholes as to be totally useless (except to illegals). My previous knowledge of McCain was the he was really trying to be the good guy--such as with America's Promise--and maybe being in the exclusive Boys Club of the US Senate has blinded him to the mess that will be created by any C.I.R.

What d'ya think? Would this work? Of course the President has limited powers, but could exercise veto on the bill if passed by the Congress.