May 11 2008
WSJ Agrees 2008 Is The Year Of The Centrist
Hyper partisanship is out. The American people, who largely do not obsess about politics, is fed up with those who do obsess to the point there is no answer they will accept on any issue – except the answer of the extremes. The liberals tasted this in 2006 with the Ned Lamont (far left) and Joe Lieberman (centrist) senate race, which pitted what many on the left deemed a turncoat (Lieberman) against a one of those leftists who demanded purity to the cause (Lamont). While Lamont took the primary, Lieberman easily took a three way general election race with over 50% of the vote. The people of CT spoke loud and clear in 2006 – stay out of the fringes.
The same thing happened to the GOP as the democrats put out an army of moderate, conservative democrats to take out ‘true conservative’ veterans across the country. Those Republicans who survived were devout centrists, traitors to many on the far right. And recently there have been a string of defeats for incumbents on the right in special elections this year, as once staunchly GOP districts and seats go to centrist democrats:
Republicans face tough odds, yes. But that’s because they’ve yet to prove they’ve learned a lesson, as they demonstrated again with Mr. Jenkins.
By the lazy standards of the GOP, Mr. Jenkins should’ve been a cinch to win a Baton Rouge district in Republican hands for 34 years, and that President Bush won with 59% in 2004. Their candidate was a rock-solid social conservative who, in 28 statehouse years, had never voted for a tax increase, and who wanted to erect a U.S.-Mexico wall.
Yet Mr. Jenkins was also a divisive firebrand. He was infamous for carrying around plastic fetuses, to demonstrate his opposition to abortion. He’d previously landed in a weird entanglement with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. This history made even conservatives fidgety, and crowded out anything Mr. Jenkins had to say on issues.
Another Amnesty Hypochondriac bit the dust – the one issue that lingered in 2006 and the GOP dared America to consider in the voting booth. Legislation was held up by Dennis Hastert and company in the House as they went on a tour to sell America for the 2006 election. Haster lost his job as Speaker of The House and the GOP lost his seat to another Amnesty Hypochondriac far right candidate in another special election.
All those GOP presidential candidates that were tied to the Amnesty Hypochondriac movement, which torpedoed another chance at reform under the current democrat led Congress, failed miserably this year. Is it any surprise that the one man on the GOP side who openly supported the Iraq war and comprehensive immigration reform is the GOP nominee to be President? This is not all coincidence folks.
And now this week has another Amnesty Hypochondriac in danger of losing a solid GOP seat in a special election:
Since 1994, Republican Roger Wicker has been reelected to his House seat with between 63 and 79 percent of the vote.
But with Wicker appointed to the Senate to fill the seat vacated by Trent Lott, who retired, Republicans are having difficulty unifying behind Greg Davis, the mayor of Southaven, a Memphis suburb in the northwest corner of the 1st District.
I went to the Greg Davis campaign website
Taxes and Spending
Make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Bury the death tax. Restrain spending.National Security
Support our armed forces by insuring they have the manpower and equipment to fight and win.Illegal Immigration
Protect the border. Enforce our immigration laws. Require proof of U.S. citizenship to obtain taxpayer-funded benefits.Mississippi Values
Defend our values. Support the Second Amendment. Stand up for the unborn.Business
Advocating policies that strengthen our economy by focusing on lower taxes, a simpler tax code, fewer regulations, and less government red tape.
Emphasis mine. So how could a candidate that mirrors McCain on just about all the issues except one be in trouble in a GOP district that has voted right by huge margins since 1994? Simple – something stinks and is causing the candidate problems. It is not making the Bush tax cuts permanent, that is for sure. It is not maintaining Mississippi values. Doubt it was because Davis stands for a strong economy and low taxes. Davis and McCain are the same on a strong national defense. There is only one area these two diverge, which has to be the one area that turns voters on in the case of McCain, or turns voters off in the case of Davis.
The WSJ notes today what I said last week, and that is 2008 is the year of the centrists:
In the wake of Tuesday’s primary elections in North Carolina and Indiana, it appears more likely than ever that the two presidential candidates this fall will be Sen. Barack Obama for the Democrats and Sen. John McCain for the Republicans. They happen to be the two most surprisingly successful candidates of the year, and both got ahead largely by arguing they have unique abilities to bring people together in Washington.
Change may be stirring in other areas that have contributed to gridlock. Voters are pulling politicians toward the middle of the ideological spectrum by registering as independents and calling for centrist solutions. A new cast of political players — some young, most little-known to the nation — is emerging to show that there are ways to transcend gridlock by reaching across the aisle.
…
Sens. McCain and Obama explicitly base their appeals to voters on the premise that they can reach out both to independent voters who are affiliated with neither party, and to politicians of the opposite party. A precedent for such a governing style recently has been set: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York have led the way, each succeeding largely by detaching themselves from their Republican party and governing as independents.
Voters are pushing the system in precisely this direction: The share of the public registered as neither Democrat nor Republican, but rather as independent, has exploded in recent years. In New Hampshire this year, more than four in 10 registered voters didn’t declare any party affiliation, up from just more than two in 10 in 1992. In California, independent voters are the fastest-growing segment of those who have registered; almost a quarter of the registered voters there now are either independent or affiliated with neither major party.
The article basically notes you can chase the money at the fringes or the votes in the middle, who decide who will win. Lamont and Lieberman will not be the only example of how money will not by votes the center decides to not give. Insult the middle, like the GOP did when it want after “RINOs” and Traitors and the inpure and you end up on the losing side of the aisle. The left is not any better, they just happened to be the only option to the defunct status quo in 2006. They seem hell bent on becoming the next status quo to be removed in 2008, but only if the GOP makes up with the moderates they chased away over illegal immigration. Until the mea culpas start showing up, the voters will stay away.
many valid points, if republicans want to regain the majority or at least hold their own some compromises have to be made. Of course their are limits on that.
My guess is that the more one digs in their heels and refuses to compromise on the immigration issue, the more likely that person is to lose their seat in office. The people are NOT happy with the current situation, but they don’t favor a fascist solution either.
AJ,
I share your views on immigration, but still think we can work with conservatives with other views by building on our areas of agreement.Terms like “amnesty hypochondriac” and “open borders” are red meat rhetoric.
We need to better explain the tax cuts so as not to be cast as favoring the rich ie. ” job stimulus”
Joe Lieberman’s a centrist? I’m sure McCain will be happy to hear that!
Macker, it is hard to work with people who not only refuse to compromise but feel that compromise is a defeat in and of itself. Politics is all about compromise. A refusal to do so results in stalemate and division. Compromise means getting some or all of what you wanted this time and you can always revisit the issue later and get more. Refusing to compromise often means getting NOTHING and then getting kicked out of office before the issue can be raised again.
I understand the rhetoric behind the refusal to compromise, but it is not practical in a real-world sense. In politics one must always be ready to compromise. You give a little and you get a little.
Barack Hussein Obama, with the most liberal voting record in the congress, a white hating preacher of 20 years, anti-American terrorists friends, who won’t even wear an American flag lapel pin or hold his hand over his heart for the pledge of allegience, who’s wife talks about America like it’s the worst country in the world, who admired the marxist politics of Saul Alinsky, is a CENTRIST???? While those of us Americans who are tired of our country being invaded by millions of law breakers are right wing extremist.
A very candid peek into the mind of AJ Strata.
P.S. The WSJ has advocated open border for many years. They don’t give a damn about anything but money.
Nothing in the WSJ article mentioned “year of the centrist” nor did it imply it. It stressed weirdo politicians with ethics problems don’t win election. In fact, it seems that honest normal conservatives win when Republicans run them and honest normal conservatives win when Democrats run them in much of the country. I, myself, think it wise to run more liberal Republicans in liberal states (there is an advantage to having a majority in Congress). But, I would rather Democrats run more conservative s in conservative states until their liberal wingnut fringe is in the insane asylum. It’s about the issues, not the party. There have been many times the blue dog Dems have done a better job than liberal Republicans on conservative issues. Fine by me.
I think the Republican party is in trouble because they don’t have a clear message, they don’t communicate their message, and the GOP leaders support crazy or ethically challenged candidates sometimes (conservative, liberal, or centrist).
Also, politics are local. The issues can vary between getting troops out of the Iraq war to immigration to ethics. It wasn’t about amnesty hypochondriacs in Louisiana…..otherwise Bobby “no amnesty” Jindal wouldnt have won the Governor’s race. Louisiana is about ethics more than anything.
For every local/state election where an anti illegal immigration candidate lost…..there is another where an anti illegal immigration won.
Take Farmer’s Branch TX for example, Tim O’Hare, who made a name leading Farmers Branch’s efforts to drive out illegal immigrants, was elected mayor of the Dallas County suburb Saturday in a landslide. There have been a couple elections won in northern states in strong Dem districts by conservative Repubs also over the past year).
I’m a conservative (I thought a centrist one until you informed me I was an amnesty hypochondriac because I want the border secured first) and I have no problem with compromise. I also have no problem with gridlock. It depends on the issue.
Year of the centrist? I guess that depends on who wins the election……Obama (most liberal Senator, never compromised on a single issue, and didn’t even vote for Judge Roberts) or McCain (centrist Republican with a record of voting all over the place).
You do realize, of course, that if Obama wins it will be the “year of the liberal” don’t you?
Comprehensive immigration lost a few years ago……and, it lost for one reason……and one reason only. Americans want the border secured first. I believe they are open to real debate and compromise on the rest after that (including “true purist conservatives”).
John McCain gets it. He is the “Centrist” candidate in the “Year of the Centrist” and he is for border securiity first now. He acknowledges he was wrong before. So, maybe I am a centrist after all????
Crosspatch,
Agree, but have to be smart to know where to compromise.
75,
Lieberman, except on foreign policy, is no centrist.
B Ken,
Agree that O’bama is a dangerous extremest. “invaded by millions of law breakers” is more red meat language. I’ll bet we can still find some agreement though.
Red meat Mac? Well, if you don’t live in an urban area in the southwest, maybe you don’t see it. Maybe you should ask some of the students at Locke High School.
http://cbs2.com/local/Fight.South.LA.2.720562.html
Latinos in LA are telling blacks to get out or die. They are killing them on the street randomly. Even the sheriff has admitted that. Now, you may not call it an invasion, that may be ‘red meat’ to you, but when you have been born and raised in the same place all your life and a few million foreigners come in and squat and tell you to get out or die, I’m thinking invasion fits the bill pretty damn well. There is an undercurrent of anger growing in the areas of this country that are just saturated with this problem and it’s going to turn violent, mark my words. This little 600 person fight in an LA school is not unusual out here, it’s just a bit larger, but the problem is growing exponentially. There will be an all out bloody race riot in LA within a few short years. The solution is not to import tens of millions more mexicans.
B Ken,
Well, I live part of the week in Sacramento, and part in Silicon Valley. I understand your concerns. But, rather than just “importing tens of millions more.” maybe we can screen and “hire” the workers that match the jobs.
By “red meat” I meant sure to arouse passion.
Just curious Mac, have you spent any time recently driving around LA? Seriously, it is starting to resemble Baghdad with mexican graffiti all over it. Last year I was coming back from the Redwoods, and believe me, anything north of the San Fernando Valley doesn’t even look like its the same country as South LA. I stopped at a gas station in Santa Ana and there was a small closed down strip mall behind the gas station. Someone had broken into the closed shop and had a hand painted sign out front that said, “MEAT”. They were selling unrefridgerated meat in a closed store with no electricity. I’ve been through Sacramento lately. Local realistic estimates are that there are about three million illegals in LA now and many more sympathetic latinos. Do you really think the idea of screening and hiring is in any possible way a reality? Mexico is going through a major civil war right now.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/drug_mexico_cartel/2008/05/11/95167.html
They don’t give a damn about screening, they are going to come regardless of what we think about it unless we actively stop them. And I don’t think John McCain has learned any such lesson about securing the border. The same man who said “I’ll build the G** D*****d fence if they want to.” is not going to lift one finger to enforce any immigration law if he lives long enough to become president.
Bikerken,
All that has nothing to do with “Amnesty” for those here long term. What you just did was change the subject and talk about problems everyone wants fixed. Part of the comprehensive immigration problem was a fast track to deport AND a tamper proof work ID.
No one has a magic wand dude – but sitting around whining does nothing either. All that the hypochondriacs achieved the last two years was to block reform and lose Congress to a party ready to give everyone instant citizenship.
You cry a nice river, the results of the hypochondriacs show they produce nothing but thing to cry about. Americans see the results and understand that for all the crying the results don’t change.
It is called credibility and the hypochondriacs squandered theirs by spinning madly (current laws will not work) and insulting everyone who disagreed with them (El Presidente Bustrad0). And until they see that they get to do nothing more than whine.
BTW Bikerken,
Obama is not the centrist in the race – that was Clinton. If you note I did not use Obama as the example, I used Lieberman.
You really are challenged over the idea the far right has been rejected at the voting booth aren’t you? Look at Congress – it tells the tale. Where is Tancredo and his ilk???
The only way to miss the obvious is to be in deep denial.
Macker,
I agree we can compromise, but the hypochondriacs don’t and have given no sign they get what happened. And they have not shown any reason for me to drop the hypochondriac label. They chose the term “Amnesty”, I just modified it to illustrate their paranoia.
I hope that we all can take a good look at how the democrats/Hard Left/sorosites/progressives are acting within their party…
and not do the same.
Gee, I wonder what the pro-amnesty crowd would do if they didn’t have Tancredo’s name to throw out every 2 seconds?
CP – “Compromising” with any leftist policy is not “compromise”, it’s surrender.
Macker – I’m aware Lieberman’s no centrist, my post was a sarcastic dig at AJ’s claim. And as for the war, he’d be against this one too if he weren’t Jewish.
BK – You’re absolutely correct.
AJ – It’s becoming obvious that the biggest whiner here is you and your crusade against conservatives.
Ive – There will be no amity in the republican party anytime soon. Anyone clueless enough to reject conservatism might as well be a Democrat.
First of all AJ, you are the only one whining and crying. You have been ever since the CIRB was defeated. You have wrote one item after another ranting on and on about how a few ‘amnesty hypochondriacs’ defeated the CIRB and how were all worse off for it. I don’t mean to baffle you with logic, but if we are such a small insignificant band of gnats, exactly how did we accomplish that?
In my previous posts, I was trying to point out that America has a huge problem right now with illegal immigration, especially from Mexico in the southwest. They are coming in large numbers very fast and they are not assimilating. Instead they are colonizing and getting very violent with those Americans who they are attempting to displace. Now if you want to call that whining, why don’t you go to South Central LA and tell them that they are whiners because they are tired of getting randomly shot at. Somehow, I don’t think you will.
You seem to believe, and you’re entitled to your opinion, that the CIRB would have somehow improved the situation. I don’t see how. The net result of the CIRB would have been to allow another 90 million people in over the next twenty years and that’s just legally, not to mention all those that would come in illegally because the CIRB would have made it very easy for them to say they’ve been here for ten years and give them temporary worker status. (the original draft was close to 200 million) The 24 hr requirement for a background check was proof that our politicians, again, were not serious about implementation.
You keep lauding the tamper proof biometric ID, but based on what? Do you seriously believe you can have people walk into a CIS office and just tell them all of their name, date of birth, place of birth and we just give them a valid US id and that system is not going to be abused to the nth degree?? What would stop someone, maybe a felon, who has been stealing identities for years from walking in and giving a false name? Now you have given a legal and legit false identity to someone who can go out and purchase a gun or do one of any number of things they couldn’t before. What would keep that person from walking in from the shadows and getting five new legit fake identities? Do you see what I’m getting at? You cannot have someone walk into an ICE office with nothing in their pocket but lint and give them a brand new American identity based on their word alone.
AJ, there were far more other problems with that bill, not just minor ones, that would have created havoc in so many ways such as:
– A requirement that all illegals be considered eligible for temp work visa, therefore, ICE couldn’t deport them unless they could prove they had already been deported before
– A requirement that the temp worker visa holders get union scale
– Capability to vote due to motor voter law
– The ability for temp workers to bring their whole family up here with them adding a huge burden to social services
I could go on and on and on about the problems with the bill, but you never would address any one of these problems, you just stood there and said, it’s not perfect but it’s better than what we have. Really? I think it would have made things a lot worse. Do you seriously believe we can take an increase in population of about 28% of our current population in just 20 years just from immigration alone, not to mention the American born? We can’t keep up with the infrastructure requirements now.
That’s why McCain and Kennedy tried to subvert the process and work around the normal committees and just vote on it up or down before anyone got a chance to read it. The arrogance was palpable. They were literally adding changes the night before the vote. They would not allow Americans or even the voting Congress to know what they were doing, that was what created so much anger. These two jerks were attempting to pass what would have amounted to the most significant legislation as far as its impact on America in the last twenty years and they didn’t want to debate one damned point of it. What really befuddles me AJ, is how you beat you chest and proclaim how the CIRB was a sorely missed opportunity when the truth is AJ, You have no idea what was in that bill! Even when posters brought up one thing after another, you just ignored the faults and said it wasn’t perfect. That’s like a daycare for small children hiring a known prolific pedophile to watch the kids and saying, “Well, he’s not perfect, but he’s the only one who applied for the job!†Sometimes, it’s better to take a breath and not do anything till you come up with a GOOD idea.
There would be no problems with “illegal immigration” or any sort of multi-culturalism in this country if foreigners still came here with the intent of becoming Americans. This is no longer the case. Before leftist socialism, foreigners came to America to be Americans and share in the American dream. Some still do but most of them now are of the socialist variety, here to take advantage of a socialist government feeding frenzy that the left is all too eager to exploit. Their idea of being an American is a SSN and LaRaza and has nothing to do with the American ideal the rest of us grew up with.
75,
There would also be no problem if we had a guest worker program where people came here for 3-6 years, had to abide by the laws, and went home – never to become Americans if they so decided.
But this is not about all that – it is about the far right stuck on stupid over the long term illegals who are in many respects attuned to American culture and can provide the bridge to the newcomers to acclimate.
But hey, current laws work – right?