Thread: Gingrich, Steele duel for RNC chair

Here is an article Gingrich wrote a couple of years ago in the Nat'l Review. He also notes some good things, but I wish he as well would specifically mention and support attrition through enforcement, but from my initial read of this, I do not see that he does. And what does "patriotic integration, "law first" and "sequencing" really mean? Aren't we already "pro-immigrant"?
-----------

National Review

April 26, 2006, 12:30 p.m.
Honesty in Immigration
We need a firm foundation of law.
By Newt Gingrich

The thousands of people we have seen marching in the streets of our cities and the planned May 1 boycott to protest U.S. immigration policy are the product of two decades of a fundamentally dishonest immigration system.

For more than 20 years, the United States has failed to control the borders or enforce immigration laws while many U.S. businesses have profited by breaking the law. In turn, the U.S. government failure to enforce the immigration laws has encouraged outright defiance of federal authority by certain state and local jurisdictions. Adding insult to this deplorable state of affairs is an immigration bureaucracy that has been slow, cumbersome, rude, heartless, and incompetent in the discharge of its duties.

This dishonest system has lured millions to enter our country illegally and obtain work here illegally.

Where are we and how should we proceed?
A detailed set of policy recommendations can be found in a working paper that I released today at the American Enterprise Institute. I have also recently recorded several radio commentaries on aspects of the immigration challenge. But let me provide here an overview.

First, it is essential to understand how big and how serious this problem is.

Second, it is equally essential to understand how big the changes will have to be to really solve the problem.

Third, it is important to follow a logical set of sequential, sustainable solutions that build a momentum that over time will result in a rational and orderly immigration policy acceptable to a majority of the American people.

Getting there is a matter of national survival both in immediate and in the long-term.

First, we must deal with the immediate. Open borders are a grave national-security threat. Why have a multibillion-dollar ballistic-missile-defense system when a terrorist can rent a truck and drive a weapon of mass destruction across the border? Gaining control of our borders is therefore an immediate and pressing national-security requirement. The secondary effect is that it would dramatically stem the flow of illegal immigration, illegal drugs, and the human trafficking of slaves (mostly female and mostly for sexual exploitation).

The longer-term threats of illegal immigration are economic and cultural.

Economically, in a world of vast income differences, instantaneous communications, and cheap travel (even when illegal), we cannot continue to allow a wide-open illegal employment system. The current flood of illegal migration if left unchecked for a period of decades will decisively undermine the economy in both economic and legal terms.

Culturally we have shifted from an integrating, English-speaking American citizenship focused model of immigration to an acceptance of foreign habits (which are going to include corruption), foreign loyalties (illustrated by the waving of foreign flags by many of the marchers, some with attitudes of contempt) and the insistence (not necessarily by immigrants) on creating non-English speaking legal and educational structures.

Instinctively, most Americans understand the corrosive effects of lawlessness on the economy and the culture. A USA Today poll two weeks ago recorded that 85 percent believe that to earn citizenship, immigrants should be required to learn English.

Note that in the same poll 84 percent would punish businesses that employ anyone not here legally, 81 percent would increase the number of officers patrolling the border, 60 percent would block them from using hospitals and schools, 61 percent say illegal immigration should be a crime and 52 percent would make it a crime to assist someone known to be here illegally.

Most Americans are open to people who want to become American, who will work hard, obey the law, and who are willing to learn English and American history. Within this framework of patriotic integration it is possible to be both pro-conservative and pro-immigrant.

Law First
But this framework cannot stand unless it is built upon the solid foundation of the rule of law.

For example, cities which receive hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from Washington block their police force from asking about an individual’s legal status (88 percent of the country favors cutting such cities off from federal money). In 2004, there were zero (0) federal enforcement fines imposed on American employers who were breaking the law by hiring people illegally.

No one believes the border is anywhere close to being controlled. Few have confidence that the government will ever seriously do something about it. In the same regard, the idea that the federal government could actually run an effective identification program for worker visas is not credible either which is why every audience applauds when I suggest outsourcing it to Visa, MasterCard, or American Express.

The radical difference between this business as usual paper-tiger effort and the seriousness of the required metrics-based solution is startling.

Lawmakers in Washington are trapped because they keep trying to appease lawbreakers while their fellow Americans watch with disgust. On the other hand, if lawmakers boldly outline a real sequential and systematic set of solutions they could win the argument in the country and move towards a workable policy that honors our values. If they fail to do this, American voters will eventually impose their will on Washington with painful political consequences for some incumbents.

Why is it so hard for some Republicans to understand the center-right view that it is far better to have Left-liberal Senators filibustering against controlled borders and effective legality than it is to appease them while enraging conservatives? If the issues are defined and communicated correctly, center-right support would grow into the 80-percent range (look again at the USA Today poll numbers).

It is possible to describe the situation in terms which are for both legality and immigration, for both controlling the border and having a worker visa program, for being sympathetic to newcomers and determined to sustain American civilization and for respecting other languages while embracing English as the language necessary for success in America. It is possible to do this in terms which will be acceptable to most immigrants and to most Americans.

It is partially a question of what we are opposed to.

If the Left-liberal choice is this map of Texas and Mexico combined with the rest of the U.S. missing, and the Mexican flag flying above an upside down American flag at an American pubic school in Arizona and the people who not only break the law but refuse to learn English while saying publicly they want to reunite the Southwest with Mexico, then you can safely assume that more than 80% of Americans will oppose you.

Left-liberals understanding that they cannot defend the above, which is why they would like us instead to believe that they are fighting against racists who want to close the border, behave harshly against innocent people, break up families, exploit migrants, and live in a xenophobic world.

An intelligent center-Right coalition would be for both security and immigration, for accuracy in identity (including a voter card with id and a biometric worker visa card) and patriotic integration of those who want to become American.

An intelligent center-Right coalition would define the opposition in terms that would lead most honest migrants to feel comfortable with defining clearly the underlying anti-security, anti-accuracy, anti-American civilization patterns of the hard Left-liberals.

Most Republicans could be convinced to articulate and follow an intelligent center-Right coalition if they understood it and understood the power of the language and the power of the definitions.

Sequencing
Charles Krauthammer has it right. There has to be a sequence of reestablishing trust.

First, control the borders with decisive legislation aggressively implemented with tight deadlines. Once we have stopped the illegal flow of people we will have demonstrated the seriousness necessary to gain both the credibility and the leverage needed to implement the next steps. Fortunately, a bipartisan consensus has emerged that securing the borders is indeed priority number one. Three national leaders have it right in their shared view that border control is the first step. Senator Frist is exactly right when he wrote recently that “to build confidence among Americans and Congress that the government takes border security seriously, we have to act to help get the border under control right now.â€

Here is a link to Gingrich's 25-page working paper on (illegal) immigration matters and what he calls "patriotic immigration." We'll have to read this closely should he ask for our support:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2 ... detail.asp

Newt said

An intelligent center-Right coalition would be for both security and immigration, for accuracy in identity (including a voter card with id and a biometric worker visa card) and patriotic integration of those who want to become American.

Steele said

Opposes amnesty for undocumented workers. (Aug 2006)
* Secure our borders immediately; meaningful reform later. (Aug 2006)

William said

Sounds like Michael Steele is repeating the McCain double speak!

Newt would be better.

Sounds to me like Newt and Steele are saying about the same thing. "Patriotic integration of those who want to become American" is a path to citizenship, and is therefore part of the immigration reform concept.

My view of our current situation is that we are like a boat with a major leak in the bottom. Our first impulse is to bail out the water that is rushing in (catch and deport illegal aliens). Problem is, if the rate of water coming thru the leak exceeds our capacity for bailing, we will eventually be overwhelmed and sunk. The only thing that will save our sinking boat is to patch the leak and stop the in-flow before it capsizes us. Bailing is a means to help keep us afloat until we successfully patch the leak, but it is not a solution. Moreover, once the leak is sealed, then we can decide what to do with the water that is left in the boat. If we can bail or pump it out, great, but the main objective is to keep the boat afloat, stable and steerable.

I still can support either Newt or Steele. But Newt carries some baggage too. He has globalist views, and supported NAFTA, both of which have contributed to our illegal immigration problems.

Here are Newt's grades from Numbers:

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/tes ... &retired=1

Gingrich or Steele would likely be better than Martinez, but we would have to watch both closely. But I would rather have a Sen. Sessions or DeMint as General Chairman.

Here's the latest. Looks like Newt (apparently) doesn't want this job. We'll have to check out the other names mentioned:

---

Politico
Musical chairs: Who will replace party heads?
By: Alexander Burns
November 12, 2008 01:48 PM EST

For Democrats, the choice of the next party chairman will likely be quick and simple. Republicans won’t have it so easy. The scramble for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee is likely to be prolonged and complicated.

Traditionally, the president's party defers to his preference for chairman so when Barack Obama announces his pick, his word will almost certainly be final. But for the GOP, out of power in both chambers of Congress and the White House, the choice of party chair is more consequential — and more difficult. In addition to being the party's top fundraiser, the RNC chair will also be an important new spokesman for the GOP, and will play a key role in organizing the party's strategy for opposing the new administration and Congress.

So far, the list of candidates for the job is long and it’s widely expected to grow longer. Republicans say several state party chairs, including South Carolina's Katon Dawson, Michigan's Saul Anuzis and Texas's Tina Benkiser, are already making phone calls to solicit support for their bids, along with former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, who currently chairs the conservative group GOPAC. Mike Duncan, the current RNC chair, is expected to seek another stint at the helm, though he has not yet publicly confirmed his intentions.

"You've got half a dozen people out there making calls, and it seems like every day there is someone who's a little more in or a little less in," said Benkiser, who explained that she has not made a final decision to run but is leaning toward taking the plunge. "Right now I think that I am as capable as anyone out there — and quite frankly, more so, having been in a state that's been successful despite what's happened nationally."

Other candidates are also feeling out the race, including Jim Greer, the chair of the Florida Republican Party; Jim Nussle, the former Iowa congressman and Bush administration budget chief; Chuck Yob, the long-serving former Republican National Committeeman for Michigan and Chip Saltsman, who managed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

Yob and Saltsman are making calls to gauge support for their possible candidacies, and Nussle has been holding meetings this week to consider his options. Dawson, who is campaigning more openly, is holding a conference in Myrtle Beach, S.C., this weekend to discuss the future of the party.

"I'm looking very seriously at running for national chairman," Dawson said Tuesday. "I'm two-thirds of the way there."

Though Duncan, the incumbent chair, is not quietly stepping aside, leading Republicans were split over the prospect of him serving another term as party chair. Some said his administrative skills and fundraising abilities made him a natural choice, but others suggested it would be necessary to bring in a new, more charismatic face for the party.

"I think Mike has done a pretty good job with what he's had to work with," said Stewart Iverson, the Iowa Republican Party chairman. "The last couple years have been pretty tough years for Republicans in general."

Steve Robertson, who heads the Republican Party in Duncan's home state of Kentucky, was even more enthusiastic, praising Duncan's management style.

"Mike pays attention to detail," Robertson said. "He is a working chairman and he has an intimate knowledge of what goes on within the Republican National Committee, and I think that's sort of the hands-on leadership that needs to continue."

Other GOP officials suggested, though, that Duncan's shortcomings as a political communicator left room for new leadership at the top.

Robin Smith, who chairs the Tennessee Republican Party, said Duncan was "a very strong, administrative, internal hand" but argued that the party needed "a little more of that charismatic ability."

"I do think the party is going to have to take a couple more risks in terms of being a little more outspoken," she said.

For Republicans seeking a powerful communicator at the top of the RNC, Steele and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have stood out as possible candidates for the job. Gingrich, however, issued a statement Tuesday disavowing any interest in the chairmanship.

One Republican strategist who supports Steele and expects that the Marylander will pursue the chairmanship called him "one of the best communicators that this party has."

"The grassroots base of the party knows who he is and is enthusiastic about him," said the strategist.

Some Republicans, however, cautioned against taking any candidates' early moves too seriously, suggesting that the field of contenders would expand and thin repeatedly in the coming months.

"I would imagine there are going to be more trial balloons in this thing than at the county fair," said Ron Nehring, the chairman of the California Republican Party.

Smith, who said she had already heard from Anuzis, Dawson, Saltsman and Yob about potential bids, agreed that it was too early to accurately gauge the political landscape.

"I do believe there are names that are going to be added to this list that we have not even heard," she said.

Another Republican official suggested that the candidates who declared earliest might find themselves subjected to unwanted scrutiny, and some of the later entrants could wind up with an edge.

"I would caution people not to throw their hat in the ring too early," the official said, adding that the media would "pick apart" candidates for the chairmanship.

As active as the campaign for the chairmanship is behind closed doors, it is almost as active online, with websites and Facebook groups cropping up to support or draft candidacies by Steele, Gingrich, Saltsman and New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu, who was defeated for reelection on Nov. 4.

The 168 members of the Republican National Committee will vote in January to settle on a single candidate for the job.

On the Democratic side, there is really only one voter who matters, and Barack Obama has not yet signaled who he intends to put in charge of the DNC. And with just over two months until Inauguration Day and an entire government to appoint, the president-elect may not be in a rush to fill the office of DNC chair.

Paul Tewes and Steve Hildebrand, two Democratic operatives who held senior positions in Obama's presidential campaign, are seen as strong contenders.

Some have also suggested that Obama could designate a higher-profile general chairman for the party, while Tewes, Hildebrand or another strategist managed the day-to-day operations at DNC headquarters. During part of President Bill Clinton's administration, Sen. Chris Dodd served as the general chairman for the party while Donald Fowler managed the DNC more directly as national chairman.

Topping lists of potential general chairmen of the DNC are several high-profile Obama campaign surrogates, including Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius or Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill — though McCaskill swatted down speculation about her prospects Tuesday.

"Barack and I have never had a conversation about this," McCaskill told the Kansas City Star.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15545.html

Newt wants a massive guest worker program. He wants to massively increase legal immigration making it harder for American workers.

Newt supported the bailout. Steele spoke out against it.