Friday, December 02, 2005

Why is this my party?

GOP Official Urges Caution on Immigrants
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman urged his party Thursday to oppose rising anti-immigrant sentiments in the debate over border security and illegal immigration, suggesting that the GOP risks being on the wrong side of history and electoral politics alike if it embraces an exclusionary message.

That's fine. We're all getting used to getting the finger from the GOP on this issue. What do I suggest? Only give money to the special interest groups and individual candidates, especially the immigration groups and people like Robert Vasquez and Tom Tancredo. Do not give money to the Republican Party.

If Mehlman thinks that supporting illegal immigration is on the right side of electoral politics then he is an idiot and needs to be replaced. Now.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Melhman is an idiot.

Vance Day (GOP Chair in Oregon) a Whimp!

Longtime R and I wouldn't give 'em the sweat off>>>>>

Sailor Republica said...

Then throw your support behind someone who is really a true R.

Jason Atkinson, that's the ticket.

And Ken Mehlman can just up and die for all I care to say.

Allen said...

Shameful! Selling yesterdays blood and tomorrows security for votes today, is the act of a greed driven coward.

Dare!PDX said...

I can't help but think that we as Repbulicans should be playing the welfare-reform card. By requiring proof of legal residence (similar to getting a job) before receiving any benefits tied to federal monies could cut hundreds of millions from the budget. Its not racism its just being fiscally conservative. Its no different than ensuring someone isn't pulling two checks.

And to those of you who think proof isn't required to get employed - as an employer I can tell you it is. We need to prosecute those who break these laws (i'm surprised unions aren't on this one as well).

Anonymous said...

wow....do you have a life?....i bet you never leave your house except maybe to to somekind of goofy rally. other than that, i bet your glued to your computer bitching about what other people do. amazing. i bet you preach to people about what the should or should not do...admit it!!...cmon...

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Scott said...

Wtf
oppose rising anti-immigrant sentiments in the debate over border security and illegal immigration

Does anyone even know someone who is anti-immigrant in the frist place? How could it be riseing ?

11:33 PM

Kaelri said...

How the tables have turned. Just a year ago, the Democrats were battling this sort of division, receiving, of course, all kinds of scorn from the GOP. And I think it's going to be more difficult for the Republicans to recover - their divisions run infinitely deeper.

james of salem said...

It's time to choose sides. You are with law abiding citizens or you are with illegal immigrants who steal our resources.

Funny how its wrong to spend any money on Iraq but OK to spend drillions accommodating theives.

Denise Quinn said...

>>Funny how its wrong to spend any money on Iraq but OK to spend drillions accommodating theives.<<

Excellent point!!

Denise

Honest Abe said...

By the look of today's anti-immigrant turn-out, looks like you all are really on the wrong side of the debate. I saw so much rage and hatred perpetrated by your group that it is clear that some of you need to take an anger management class.

So what is the next step for the anti-immigrant squad? My suggestion is that you all take a hiatus and regroup before you embarrass yourselves at any more rallies. I've seen more people turn out to beach cleanup on the Hudson than you guys had. Sad

Tony said...

Hey all...did you ever stop and think that maybe what the official party line is, and what its individual members might DO, might be dfferent? Taht maybe as a PR head (as Mehlman is, essentially), you have to be more diplomatic?

Notice Tom Tancredo, for example, is a REPUBLICAN, as are all the other border security hawks.

It is a sensitive political issue, and I applaud them for treating it as such.

And before you Dems start shouting hypocrisy, look at your own rhetoric on the Iraq war. Your individual MEMBERS support surrender, but they won't vote for it or advocate it from the DNC. Rather, they just hide under "it hasn't been done right".

We don't need a decoder to know that Dems are supporting surrender and Republicans want the border protected, and it is not illegitimate to play the kind of game you have to play to be a governing majority.

Kaelri said...

Yay for more belligerence...

"And before you Dems start shouting hypocrisy, look at your own rhetoric on the Iraq war. Your individual MEMBERS support surrender, but they won't vote for it or advocate it from the DNC. Rather, they just hide under 'it hasn't been done right'.

No one's saying you're hypocrites, just that maybe now you'll understand that when it comes to serving the people, party loyalty is not and should never be a factor.

Please, stop perpetuating these half-truths about the withdrawal vote. Everyone voted against it because a) they weren't given nearly enough time for an actual debate on the issue and b) the Democrats aren't actually calling for immediate withdrawal. Congressman Murtha's words were "as soon as practicably possible." You know all of that, stop pretending the rest of us don't.

Allen said...

Honest abe's bait is comical.

Always be concerned of those who proclaim honesty.

Sailor Republica said...

Hey, Abe,

The wrong side of the debate is the one that is illegal. That would be you and your supporters.

We're on the right side of the debate, and we will continue with what we are doing.

Tony said...

Kaelri,

Bull.

Everyone knows what Murtha was saying. Using euphimisms like "redeployment" and "as soon as practically possible" do not hide the obvious truth.

He also said that the US was the problem in Iraq. So if we are the problem, an immediate withdrawl would be "practicable".

You actually proved that the Dems are more interested in "debate", which means saying stuff to hurt George Bush, than they are in their actual positions.

We have been "debating" this for 3 years. I know the Dem position, they know ours, whats to talk about? They want to pull out and let Iraq crumble on itself to be able to say "see we told you so" to Bush, just like when millions were killed in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos when they undermined the war then and forced us to pull out.

It is reckless, irresponsible, and yes, cowardly rhetoric to be spouting while our fighting forces are in harms way. You want a debate, close the floor of the house or senate and debate all day. Don't do it on TV where it will end up on Al Jezeera promoting the whims of the fanatical Islamic fascists who want to convert us or kill us.

There have been 3 years of debate that has energized the islamonazis. Osama told them that we can't stomach a long fight, and we will turn around and run if they just keep fighting. He then uses the words of people like Dick Durbin, who equates our troops with Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot as proof that they should keep fighting and killing Americans and Iraqis who want freedom. There has been, if anything , too much debate.

Murtha is only the tip of the iceberg, I wanst even referring to him in my previous post. But even the maneuvering that he and you are trying to do does not hide the message: the US is the problem, he says, and we should have an immediate "redeployment" (surrender and leave). That is not only cowardice, it is treason.

Kaelri said...

You actually proved that the Dems are more interested in "debate", which means saying stuff to hurt George Bush, than they are in their actual positions.

Belligerence. I'm not the DNC press secretary, and I don't have any professional experience in this area, but the idea of one of the two major political parties working with the active goal of seeing their country surrender and fail simply to win an election - saying "let's tear down the place, maybe the people will hire us to rebuild it" - is really a level of paranoia that you'd be doing yourself a favor to have checked.

For the American military to simply drop everything and walk away would be absurd. Yes, we agree on something, Tony, and so do most of the Democrats. I can't blame the ones who don't, I really can't. The massiveness of the disgrace that this war has brought makes it difficult to stomach another day of it; switching on CNN with shaking hands to see if one of the casualties today was your brother or sister.

This is pretty much a no-win scenario. The presense of our military in Iraq is just as much part of the problem as it is of the solution. We're there to kill the insurgents, but who are the insurgents trying to kill? Us. If we leave, there'll be chaos, anarchy, probably civil war, but be realistic: that's exactly what's happening right now.

We've set in motion forces that cannot be stopped. We're trying to fight terrorism with warfare and it just doesn't work like that. For every one we kill, three will proudly take up arms in his name. Any move they make, they win. Any move we make, we lose.

Yes, we'll stay there long enough to get the government fully functional, the civil services that we ourselves destroyed in Shock and Awe up and running again, the military - to some extent - capable of defending them. We've already overstepped out purported authority by miles but I, and most conscientious liberals, mind you, understand that we can't back out of it on a whim. For the same reasons that most of us support the equality of gay union and a woman's right to choose, we keep our personal morals out of government in favor of a higher code - universal, inalienable human rights. That code, at least, we are desperate to defend.

Do you really not understand the frustration we have with the President? We're told - recently we've been told in a thirty-five page "plan" - that our strategy in Iraq is to "stay the course." He seems to completely fail to understand that our "course" doesn't look very good at the moment.

Comparing this war to Vietnam, as you've discovered, is increasingly appropriate. Nobody really knew why we were fighting that war, either. That, at least, was a matter of ambiguity; in the war of our generation it's about 90% of the charter turning out to be entirely false.

"It is reckless, irresponsible, and yes, cowardly rhetoric to be spouting while our fighting forces are in harms way. You want a debate, close the floor of the house or senate and debate all day. Don't do it on TV where it will end up on Al Jezeera promoting the whims of the fanatical Islamic fascists who want to convert us or kill us."

Is it really enough to say "we're at war?" That's what most people say to me when I try to debate it with them. "We're at war, children" - as if it's all a well-oiled machine in the President's head and the only thing that matters is that we win. Myself, I think that kind of thinking is irresponsible. War is not some kind of holy thing, not to be judged until the aftermath. Every action of a leader must be criticized on some level; if it's the right one, he'll prove it either by his own eloquence or just by pointing at it and saying "see? It works!" President Bush can't do those things; his people, even his generals are telling him every day (or trying to tell him, usually failing but that's another story) that he's made some incredibly bad decisions, and he's got nothing to defend himself with. "Stay the course?" Until what? We achieve victory? What the hell is victory in this? As long as there is an American soldier on Iraqi soil there will be someone there whose life mission it is to kill him.

That's the truth; that's not a sadistic, political attempt to undermine the mission. And even if it does, I'd much, much rather see a demoralized soldier who hates me than a dead one who would certainly hate me more for doing nothing to stop what I could stop.

Bob said...

Kaelri,

"We're trying to fight terrorism with warfare and it just doesn't work like that."

Just curious - how does it work?

Kaelri said...

The way I described in the sentence after that one.

Anonymous said...

I guess I didn't phrase my question clearly - that's how it doesn't work.

Bob said...

Forgot to sign my name on that last one...

Kaelri said...

Er, let me just rephrase the whole thing, then: killing a terrorist effectively creates two or three more; ergo, fighting terrorism with conventional warfare will not lead to victory. It's counterproductive. All that a terrorist wants, for whatever purpose, is to destroy his enemies, and if he has to go down with them then once more unto the breach. If we want to stop terrorism then we have to stop it before it begins: stop people from wanting to blow themselves up.

Anonymous said...

If we don't fire Vance Day and insist that the national GOP party stop with being "nice" on this issue, we are going to pay with more then our wasted vote.

I SENT THIS TO DAY:

2389042
Portland, OR
3rd Post Dear Mr. Day, My name is Jack Peek, Sr. I live in Portland and was over the years active in local neighborhood politics as Neighborhood president in the Foster-Powell neighborhood.

I have worked with Bob Tiernan, Steve Doell, Lars Larson, Victoria Taft, and others on an issue of community safety -- that being the placement of 5 criminally insane people in a group home next to a grade school in my neighborhood. This currently is a 300 plus client placement in Portland of clients such as these from the Oregon State Hospital.

I activated the unsuccessful recall of Vera Katz.


The above is just to point out that I care about this state.


Today in the Oregonian there was a letter where the writer whined about an airline captain holding "captive" two people enroute to PDX from Chi-Town. These two passengers were OFFENDED, by the captain recognizing two fellow passengers, soldiers returning from Iraq.


http://www.oregonlive.co m/letters/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/edit orial/112997710362400.xml&coll=7& thispage=2
Held captive by pilot

A funny thing happened to us on an American Airlines flight from Portland to Chicago this month.

After having welcomed us, the captain pronounced a political speech glorifying a couple of soldiers in the plane, their labor and their mission in Iraq.

By doing so, the captain acted as an ideological kidnapper. That was not his plane but American Airlines' plane. And, we paid to be transported from Point A to Point B safely; we did not pay to hear about the political opinions of a pilot, nor the glorification of a re-re-redefined (more "re-" to come, that's for sure) mission.

He had no right to do what he did. Keep politics off planes.

SEBASTIAN REYES GARCIA and FRIEDERIKE MACKENSEN, Southwest Portland

This is a prime example of us being held "captive" as well!

Then the "events" planned for the 2000th death of an American soldier in Iraq....SICK!


BOTTOM-LINE: I'm asking politely for now, WAR DECLARED on Multnomah County, we fight this disease by energizing all possible efforts for voter signups (what the other side does), and we describe it as a WAR. We fight this statewide. We honestly are on a short timeline to take back this state without even mentioning GWB.

This has to be done...TOM POTTER is out on the eastern part of Oregon "selling" Portland as a friend not foe in politics of the state. WHAT BS!

I beg you to react in such a way...that people feel their apathy has been noted, and the party is not impotent as it is now perceived. I hope you will respond. Jack Peek



Dear Ken, Please ask yourself can we stay the course here in Oregon, or just do nothing? We are going to lose period, if drastic action is not planned.



Mr Day say's I am a bully, I'm a pissed-off GOP voter, an sir, I'm not alone, Please find some time to discuss this. Respectfully, Jack Peek SR.

Anonymous said...

RE: Murtha

This scumbag was the unindicted 6th co-conspiritor in the ABSCAM case back in 1980. Murtha was the one who didn't take the $50,000 bribe because HE WANTED MORE. There is an FBI video of this. The only reason he got off is because his buddy Tip O'neal pulled in massive favors, claiming that asking for a larger bribe was not taking a bribe and therefore he couldn't be indicted.

RE: Mehlman & Day are pussies who read too much Dale Carnegie and not enough Machiavelli.

Tony said...

Kaelri,

Democrats may be shocked to find this out, but the purpose of war is not to make sure that nobody ever gets hurt! It is to destroy the enemy's ability to make war, even at the cost of your own life or those of your soldiers.

As I have quoted on my blog, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill

You say that the war is a disgrace, etc, then show precisely why: You turn on CNN! All that is reported is the daily body count. Why would you think anything other than negative, you are given nothing to go on! Most of Iraq is safe and free, the killing has stopped, and freedom has taken hold. It is only in a couple of areas, certain negihborhoods where there is still resistance.

To only lose 2,000 soldiers and a few thousand civilians in a war of this type (largely urban) is completely unprecedented success.

We used to lose 2,000 soldiers in a single battle. We didnt see it as a mark of failure, only as the ugly cost of war. But we realize that war is what brings peace, tragically.

In WWII, even after Hitler was vanquished, the Russian troops went into Berlin to stamp out the last remaining Hitler supporters (similar to what our guys are doing in Bagdhad and the Sunni Triangle). They lost about 300,000 men during that operation. 2,000, while 2000 individual tragedies, is a drop in the bucket compared to what these operations normally cost.

But the price was worth it to defeat a murderous ideology bent on world domination (like the islamofascists today).

"the idea of one of the two major political parties working with the active goal of seeing their country surrender and fail simply to win an election - saying "let's tear down the place, maybe the people will hire us to rebuild it" - is really a level of paranoia that you'd be doing yourself a favor to have checked."

It 'aint paranoia if its true. The MoveOn faction of your party (an unfortunate growing segment that now dominates the party) absolutely wants us to fail, to repeat the victory they scored in Vietnam. The playbook is the same, they dont believe in capitalism and they want to tear down America and the President. That is a demonstrable fact. The fact that you may not fall into this camp, as you seem more like the rare thoughtful liberal, does not make it untrue of your party leadership (kerry, dean, etc).

You don't know how war is waged. It is a defect in the breed (Dems). You think our leaving will somehow quiet things down? Ridiculous.

And don;t oversimplify the President's plan to just "well, we will just stick around and see how it goes." You KNOW the President's plan. It's the same one your less irresponsible Dems (eg, Biden, Leiberman, etc) spout:

-keep training the Iraqi security forces until they can do the job on their own

-help reform the political process, a 3 step plan that will be fully realized in a few weeks

-Try Saddam in his own county by his own countrymen

-leave (or retreat to bases), forcing public opinon of the terrorists even lower, eventually eliminating the terrorist attacks in Iraq

That is the plan. YOU KNOW IT. YOUR PARTY KNOWS IT. To continue to pretend it isnt there and it isnt working is dishonest at best, and treason at worst, for it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

No, being at war is not a free ticket to the President to do whatever he wants. But you and yours have to be responsible and not put the troops in greater harm or encourage the enemy. Currently, Dems do that DAILY, feeding the attacks. We disagreed with aiding the throatcutting islamic radicals in Kosovo, but you didnt hear the Republicans using this rhetoric while the troops were in harms way. (And BTW, we are still there).

Your notion that one dead terrorist is a hydra that spouts 3 more is crapola. It isnt born out by the evidence. There are less terroists now and less attacks, because we kill and capture them while winning hearts and minds. Yes, the deaths are up, because the enemy is adapting and making their attacks more lethal.

Ask the troops - they dont want to be saved by you. They want to finish their job, and they would prefer that you remained quiet and expressed your disagreements in a way that did not further jeopardize their lives or their mission. They would be CRUSHED if they had to leave and pull out prematurely - those 2000 deaths woul dbe for nothing, and the Islamic throatcutters will have proven that even under Republican control, America does not have the stomach for a tough battle. They will be so emboldened that nothing will be able to stop them anymore.

What do you tell kids about schoolyard bullies? Stand up to them, dont give in - that encourages them! It is the same thing on a larger scale, with life and death consequences.

Kaelri, it is your well meaning but ignorant reactions to the horror of the neccessity of war that reminds all of us that Democrats are unfit for leadership. It is your failure to believe that there are subversive elements that seek to undermine the American system at work, and the Democrats either with willingness or unwittingly play into their hands.

This is a world dominated by force, unfortunately. You lay down your arms, and someone will be along to pick them up and slaughter you. It is a sad reality that wishful thinking won't fix.

Tony said...

Confidential to Jack Peek:

You are a goof. Stop acting like an overgrown baby and pouting when the adults don't agree with you or give you your way.

And anon, if you aren't the same anon as Jack, back up your assertion that Mehlman and Day are "pussies." (at least they put their names out there).

And you are right about Murtha. It was his war hero status too that saved him (like McCain who managed to use his hero card to avoid being tossed in the Keating 5 scandal).

Kaelri said...

Don't have much time for a full response, Tony, and I imagine this post will disappear off the front page pretty soon, but I'd just like to ask you, as a matter of principle, if you think these people are as guilty of treason.

Anonymous said...

Hey Tony:

Hey, you prove these two people in the leadership of the party are not wimps.


The first post here on the "why is this my party" IS NOT MINE!

I did sign the letter I posted.

If you think for a minute, that I'm alone in my thinking,drink some more KOOLAID.

I want agressive action, I want you to call for a look at the dollars handed a group at the U 0F O ,that if you read the "PLAN",states real clear about the intent of their movement.

Daniel should run for office, you should support him.

You wanna know something else? I think that if you think, all is OK in Oregon GOP politics....TAKE SOME TIME OFF! Jack Peek