Foxfyre wrote:So where is the GOP going to go for candidates? Not to the Dems.
But I'm afraid they'll stay home and not vote at all.
I keep hoping, against hope, that they will go to the Libertarian party. I also keep hoping that Libertarians, once they see a fighting chance of ever governing something, will part ways with some of their wackier proponents and become a viable alternative.
Sierra writes
Quote:Sorry to dash your hopes, but the GOP will not only retain control of both houses, we might even pick up a seat in the Senate.
I hope you are a capable prophet my friend.
However, I am sufficiently disappointed in the GOP that I hope they've had the fear of Hades or something put into them so they'll be able to rethink their policies and positions on things and start acting like Republicans again.
And to Thomas: The Libertarians are going to have to dump their cozy relationship with the ACLU before they'll be able to win the hearts and votes of true conservatives in this country. As you know, my own political ideology is far closer to Libertarian and any other, but right now they simply do not have a viable party to compete. They could, if they would just stand on principle and be willing to sever ties with those groups that do not share Libertarian principles.
My Prediction is that the Dems will pick up 18 in the House (enough for the majority), and three in the Senate (or 4 if Laffee Beats Chafee in the primary (still not enough for the majority).
But perhaps this is for another thread.
Foxfyre wrote: And to Thomas: The Libertarians are going to have to dump their cozy relationship with the ACLU before they'll be able to win the hearts and votes of true conservatives in this country.
If they can get the Clinton Democrats and the Goldwater Republicans, they may not need the pitiless hearts and empty minds of "true" conservatives like Rush Limbaugh.
Foxfyre wrote:They could, if they would just stand on principle and be willing to sever ties with those groups that do not share Libertarian principles.
How about separation of church and state? Protection of privacy against warrantless wiretapping? Opposition to overreaching executive power? Opposition to indefinite detentions without a trial? Freedom of immigration? There seems to be a long list of libertarian principles that the ACLU shares and you don't. The problem with the Libertarians is their wacky timeframes, like the one about abolishing the income tax within 10 years. Their adherence to civil liberties conservatives don't like is not a problem for them.
SierraSong wrote:Sorry to dash your hopes, but the GOP will not only retain control of both houses, we might even pick up a seat in the Senate.
Let's talk about that on November 5th.
Sierra Song, feeling lonely, imagines new friends under the sofa
Quote:The polls showing a majority who think the country is headed in the wrong direction are correct, but by "wrong direction", the respondents mean the country is headed in a leftist/socialist direction rather than a libertarian/conservative one.
blatham wrote:Sierra Song, feeling lonely, imagines new friends under the sofa
Quote:The polls showing a majority who think the country is headed in the wrong direction are correct, but by "wrong direction", the respondents mean the country is headed in a leftist/socialist direction rather than a libertarian/conservative one.
I bet that each person who is using the word "libertarian" here has a completely different idea on what "libertarian" means.
Thomas wrote:Foxfyre wrote: And to Thomas: The Libertarians are going to have to dump their cozy relationship with the ACLU before they'll be able to win the hearts and votes of true conservatives in this country.
If they can get the Clinton Democrats and the Goldwater Republicans, they may not need the pitiless hearts and empty minds of "true" conservatives like Rush Limbaugh.
I wonder if those of you who are so sure Rush Limbaugh is an "empty mind" or "empty suit" or possessed of a "pitiless heart" have ever actually listened to what he has to say rather than read what others say he says? You might have a very different impression. I rarely listen to Rush any more other than very intermittently and casually as he is featured on my primary news station, and I sure don't agree with him on every point, but he sure doesn't deserve the bad rap the uninformed wish to lay on him either.
Foxfyre wrote:They could, if they would just stand on principle and be willing to sever ties with those groups that do not share Libertarian principles.
How about separation of church and state? Protection of privacy against warrantless wiretapping? Opposition to overreaching executive power? Opposition to indefinite detentions without a trial? Freedom of immigration? There seems to be a long list of libertarian principles that the ACLU shares and you don't. The problem with the Libertarians is their wacky timeframes, like the one about abolishing the income tax within 10 years. Their adherence to civil liberties conservatives don't like is not a problem for them.
Speaking from both a conservative and libertarian point of view, I believe the ACLU has greviously corrupted the correct interpretation of "separation of church and state' and is purposely trampling on First Amendment rights on that very score. I believe that it is the role of Congress and the Supreme Court to rein in any overreaching executive power and that is not the role of the ACLU. I believe the issue of warrantless wiretaps is a red herring and grossly abused by both the Democrats and their legal extension, the ACLU.
I am strongly in favor of human rights, civil rights, and protection of all the ideals and principles contained within our Constitution, and I think at one time so did the ACLU. I do not believe they do anymore.
ebrown_p wrote:blatham wrote:Sierra Song, feeling lonely, imagines new friends under the sofa
Quote:The polls showing a majority who think the country is headed in the wrong direction are correct, but by "wrong direction", the respondents mean the country is headed in a leftist/socialist direction rather than a libertarian/conservative one.
I bet that each person who is using the word "libertarian" here has a completely different idea on what "libertarian" means.
Oh yeah. And imagine if a midnight sculker unlocked those iron cages and let loose ideas about "liberal" and "conservative". Who'd be safe?
Thomas wrote:SierraSong wrote:Sorry to dash your hopes, but the GOP will not only retain control of both houses, we might even pick up a seat in the Senate.
Let's talk about that on November 5th.
Any significance to that particular Sunday?
Nope, I thought that was Wednesday when I posted. Very well, November 8th then.
ebrown_p wrote:My Prediction is that the Dems will pick up 18 in the House (enough for the majority), and three in the Senate (or 4 if Laffee Beats Chafee in the primary (still not enough for the majority).
But perhaps this is for another thread.
I see this prediction (or very similar ones) frequently. I think it's the Dems' way of preparing for the aftermath of yet another loss.
"Voter fraud" will yet again be the buzzwords on Nov. 8th. We see it every time.
Very twisted, methinks.
Something to ponder:
The Democrats' chances of retaking the White House are doomed if they nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008, according to Boston Herald Business Columnist Brett Arends.
Several weeks ago Arends reported that 45 percent of Democrats in New Hampshire were telling focus groups "they hate her. Hate."
Among the words used to describe Clinton were "evil" and "diabolical."
"These people will not vote for her in a general election," Arends writes.
"So you'd think the party would be throwing itself, right now, into a relentless quest for a more viable alternative...
"Instead the party establishment is pouring its time, money and effort into launching the USS Hillary - even though the ship is leaving port already holed below the waterline."
The likely outcome, according to the columnist, is "a sudden, panicked reappraisal early in 2008, and a backup nominee picked in haste. As they did last time."
Arends adds that considering the problems besetting the Republican administration - including the war in Iraq, the deficits and fuel prices - "you'd expect the opposition to be at 65 percent in the polls and heading for a landslide.
"Instead, there is still a real chance the GOP will keep one or even both houses of Congress this fall - and the White House in two years' time."
Chaplin wrote:Something to ponder:
The Democrats' chances of retaking the White House are doomed if they nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008, according to Boston Herald Business Columnist Brett Arends.
Several weeks ago Arends reported that 45 percent of Democrats in New Hampshire were telling focus groups "they hate her. Hate."
Among the words used to describe Clinton were "evil" and "diabolical."
"These people will not vote for her in a general election," Arends writes.
"So you'd think the party would be throwing itself, right now, into a relentless quest for a more viable alternative...
"Instead the party establishment is pouring its time, money and effort into launching the USS Hillary - even though the ship is leaving port already holed below the waterline."
The likely outcome, according to the columnist, is "a sudden, panicked reappraisal early in 2008, and a backup nominee picked in haste. As they did last time."
Arends adds that considering the problems besetting the Republican administration - including the war in Iraq, the deficits and fuel prices - "you'd expect the opposition to be at 65 percent in the polls and heading for a landslide.
"Instead, there is still a real chance the GOP will keep one or even both houses of Congress this fall - and the White House in two years' time."
Being a Democrat I don't care much for Hillary myself. I don't think she has much of a chance of getting the 2008 nomination.
As for the 2006 elections I don't think the Democrats have much chance of winning the Senate but there is a better possibility of them winning the House. However there is a lot that can happen in the next two months. No one will know anything until the votes are counted.
Okay guys, there are several Hillary thread already out there and Nimh has a thread going on the upcoming elections or we could probably start a new thread devoted to the November election.
Let's keep this one focused on Immigration law and reform, please, and I'll include myself in that admonition.
One of the various examples, how the bad approach of European governments on illegal immigration can be changed by up-to-date events:
Hero nanny's death spurs Italy to action
Quote:Pledge to speed up work permits for illegal migrants after Honduran carer saved child's life
The heroism of an illegal immigrant who drowned while saving the life of an 11-year-old girl has prompted the Italian government to speed up the issuing of work permits for nearly half a million other clandestini.
The Albuquerque Tribune reports today (Albuquerque Tribune, 15.09.2006, page 16 - transcripted since not online):
Quote:Guard's Presence Tightens Border
Crossings Down 45% Since June
By Rene Romo
Journal Southern Bureau
LAS CRUCES - Illegal crossings from Mexico have fallen 45 percent since National Guard troops were dispatched to the New Mexico border in June to support the Border Patrol, Col. Jim Morgan said Thursday.
Morgan ... discussed border security with the Legislature's Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee.
[...]
Currently, 770 National Guard troops are working in New Mexico in support of the Border Patrol, Morgan said.
"We are at locations determined by the flow of people," he said in an interview before his committee appearance.
While Morgan, along with representatives from State Police and Doña Ana and Luna county sheriff's departments, discussed how they are involved in facets of border security, other speakers said many immigrants living in New Mexico are fearful because of the beefed-up effords.
Elizabeth Camargo, program coordinator for the Border Network for Human Rights, said some residents have reported incidents when local police inquired about their immigration status as they walked children to school.
"This is a big concern," Camargo said. "We have mixed-status families and it makes people think twice about calling the sheriff's department."
A related report (IMHO) in today's Chicago Tribune (graphis from section 5, page 10)
No rush to claim cash for ER bills
Quote:A controversial $1 billion federal program trumpeted as salvation for hospitals and others stuck with illegal immigrants' unpaid emergency care bills has largely gone unused.
Federal officials can't explain why overburdened communities have not grabbed the cash.
"We are really not certain why providers are not claiming the money," said Herb Kuhn, head of the government's Center for Medicare Management, which administers the program intended to distribute the $1 billion between 2005 and 2008.
Nationally, only 15 percent of the money has been handed out three-quarters of the way through the program's first year.
