Has the GOP Gone off the Deep End? Thomas Edsall

1. 72

   Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

   "Has the GOP Gone Off the Deep End?"
   
   "Thomas Doherty, patronage czar and political enforcer for former New York Governor George Pataki, reached the breaking point last week when he read that House Republicans were preparing to “slow walk” the Senate immigration bill to death.
   
   "Doherty turned to Twitter:
   
   "  If Senate Immigration bill gets ripped apart and ultimately defeated by House #GOP I’ve decided to leave my political home of 32 yrs #sad.
   
   "Doherty told me that he has come to the conclusion that my party has elements within it that dislike homosexuals and think America is still in the 1940s. And while we talk about freedom and liberty, that liberty and freedom only seem to be acceptable for some.
   
   "Doherty, no liberal, is representative of the growing strength on the right of the view that the Republican Party has gone off the deep end.
   
   “Their rigidity is killing them. It’s either holy purity or you are anathema,” Tom Korologos, a premier Republican lobbyist and the ambassador to Belgium under George W. Bush, said in a phone interview. “Too many ideologues have come in. You don’t win by what they are doing.”
   
   "A number of prominent figures in the Republican Party share this harsh view. Jeb Bush warned last year that both Ronald Reagan and his own father would have a “hard time” fitting into the contemporary Republican Party, which he described as dominated by “an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.”  More here:
   
   http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … ep-end/?hp

   replyreport
   1. 51

      Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Jeb Bush is not a conservative!
      
      George H.W. Bush is not a conservative!
      
      Ronald Reagan would feel right at home.
      
      Bye bye Thomas Doherty.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Whoa, wait, what?!
         
         

         replyreport
      2. 72

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ronald Reagan was a liberal compared to the current crop of mouth-breathers who are taking over the GOP.
         "The nominal national debt rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during Reagan's tenure, an average national budget deficit per year of $237.5 billion, as compared to an average national budget deficit per year of $56.9 billion during Carter's tenure. The federal deficit as percentage of GDP rose from 2.65% of GDP in 1980, Carter's final budget year, to 3.04% of GDP in 1988, Reagan's final budget year.[51]" Wikipedia

         replyreport
         1. 51

            Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe true I don't know. What is true is that Democrats controlled the house and Senate the entire time Reagan was President.
            
            More truth, Reagan took office in much dire times than Obama and was able to fix the problem in less than 4 years!
            
            Why can't democrats ever fix the problems?
            
            Let me guess you're going to bring up Bill Clinton, the House and Senate were controlled by the Republicans for six of his 8 years in office!
            
            We know who controls the money in Washington and it isn't the President.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               "More truth, Reagan took office in much dire times than Obama and was able to fix the problem in less than 4 years!"
               
               Lie Detector, you should try thinking a bit more before you type. Obama took office at the beginning of the deepest economic recession since the 1930s. And he has done his best to promote a recovery with almost no cooperation from the Republicans in Congress.

               replyreport
               1. 51

                  Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You are starting to believe yourself. Don't forget the first two years Democrats controlled the House and senate he didn't need Republicans and still he couldn't get the job done!
                  
                  Reagan did it in four years with Democrats controlling Congress, don't lecture me on thinking .
                  
                  http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar … d-figures/

                  replyreport
      3. 68

         Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Lol.....
         
         What did I just read?
         
         According to Republicans, no one in the party is a conservative. I guess that's an easy way to distance yourself from their failures?
         
         The truth is that today's GOP is utterly useless when it comes to getting things done.
         
         On the wrong side of all the key social issues....
         
         On the wrong side of most economic issues.....
         
         And you guys still get elected somehow?

         replyreport
   2. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The GOP "might have elements within it that dislike homosexuals," but the Democrats have Fred Phelps.
      
      Nothing tops that in the hate-gay world.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      gposchmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The current Republican party is in a schizophrenic tail spin with regards to immigration.  They have a variety of elements to satisfy and for them at this time no action keeps them out of real trouble. 
      
      There are large number of conservative  business owners who want undocumented workers for a cheap labor force that they can mistreat, and who can't complain. There are conservatives who want to close borders to immigration because they have some deep seated need for some kind of purity.  They also want to ship home the huge population of undocumented workers with no concept of the nightmare that process would entail, and they have a huge growing minority population who they pretty much lost most of in the last election, but insist they have their best interests at heart for the future.
      
      While the Democrats actually are in a pretty good position.  Support for some king of an amnesty program appeals to most US citizens, and it does represent votes.  That improves the Democrats position with minorities which are growing faster than most other demographics.  Coming up with a workable plan would help the Democrats more than the Republicans.

      replyreport
2. 65

   Zelkiiroposted 12 years ago

   The GOP's been off the deep end for a long time now. The last great Republican president was Teddy Roosevelt, and that was 120 years ago.
   
   ...But then again, our last great president *period* was FDR, and that was 80 years ago...

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Many historians put Harry Truman in the top ten or even the top five presidents.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ehhhh, Truman was alright. Nothin' spectacular.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those Presidents are Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining places in the top ten are often rounded out by Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, James K. Polk, and Andrew Jackson. The bottom ten are Warren G. Harding, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Ulysses S. Grant, Zachary Taylor, William Henry Harrison, and John Tyler. Because Harrison (32 days) and James A. Garfield (200 days, incapacitated after 119 days) both died shortly after taking office, they are sometimes omitted from presidential rankings."
            
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Rankings
            
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               He's still nowhere near as awesome as FDR. >:{

               replyreport
3. 86

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   I'm always suspicious when a liberal Democrat claims to be concerned about the welfare of Republicans.
   
   And would someone please tell me why Republicans should help Democrats legalize 15,000,000 new dependents, all of whom will vote for Democrats?

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The same reason we legalized millions of immigrants in the 1930s. And the 1920s. And the 1910s. And the 1900s. And  the 1890s. And the 1880s. And so on and so forth.
      
      Pro-Tip: Chances are that none of us here are Native Americans, so we've got no business whining about immigrants.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If you are born here you are a Native American!
         
         Funny how that works!

         replyreport
   2. 72

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Doherty is a Republican.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      With you on that one Will.

      replyreport
   4. 70

      Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Howdy Mr. Starr. You pose a cool question framed purely in political terms. However, you may be missing something if you ignore practical research that challenges your assumptions.
      
      For example, you might consider a $1.8 billion gain in Arizona’s gross state product rather than a $13.3 billion cut if all undocumented workers are deported.
      
      Arizona’s Cronkite News points out that Arizona “could be throwing away millions in potential tax revenues by trying to drive illegal immigrants out.” In a feature article published last fall, they note that “A new report challenges the argument that illegal immigrants are a drain on Arizona’s economy.”
      
      They are referring to a study titled “The Consequences of Legalization Versus Mass Deportation in Arizona,” which envisions dire fiscal consequences for Arizona without its undocumented workers. {1}
      
      (I apologize for the poor graphic. Zooming to 150% might help.)
      The study explores in depth just what would happen to Arizona’s economy if all of its 211,000 undocumented workers were deported vs. the results from their ultimate legal status. It compares the significant gains if legalization occurs to the major economic losses if total deportation became a reality.
      
      Among the study’s findings, mass deportation will result in an annual $6.25 billion reduction in AZ wages leading to $2.4 billion in lost tax revenue on top of a $13.3 billion cut in the state’s gross product output. In contrast, just legalization of the undocumented, not citizenship, mind you, will increase wages in the state by $1.8 billion and will produce $540 million in additional tax revenues from nearly 39,000 newly created jobs.
      
      I am just not smart enough to make this stuff up, Mr. Starr. You should have a close look at the study yourself and be sure to look at the methodology.
      
      I have learned that it is not unusual in immigration discussions like this to see emotional political rhetoric exceeding intellectual inquiry by a large margin.
      
      
      {1} http://www.scribd.com/doc/104334578/Dep … in-Arizona

      replyreport
4. 86

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   "The same reason we legalized millions of immigrants in the 1930s. And the 1920s. And the 1910s. And the 1900s. And  the 1890s. And the 1880s. And so on and so forth."
   
   
   But those immigrants all came here legally, with a skill, and were expected to pay their own way. They wanted to be loyal new citizens.
   
   We are talking about taking on those who sneaked across our borders, are unskilled, and will be instant new dependents. They march down our streets waving the flag of Mexico!
   
   So tell me again why we need people like that?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      gposchmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Consevative business owners do not want to fix the immigration problem, and Republican legislators know this.  While a majority of the people who come over the Mexican border are agricultural workers, most of them are not without skills.  And agri business and resteraunts, and hotels  prefer the workers to remain undocumented because they can pay them sub standard wages and treat them like second class citizens, and if they get uppity, they can threaten them with deportation.
      
      Most illegals work hard, keep a low profile and are a looking fot the oppurtunity to better their lifes.  It is called the American dream, and they are entitled to it, because most of them are Americans.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You nailed it.

         replyreport
   2. 81

      Doc Snowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If they are so 'unskilled,' why are they dominating in so many areas of the trades?  Moreover, the whole point of emigration from Latin America to the US is economic opportunity--meaning jobs.  In my working life, I certainly see many of these immigrants working very hard indeed, some in skilled trades, some in jobs that are 'humbler.'  But work they certainly do.
      
      And if they have no wish to become 'loyal Americans,' then why is the issue of citizenship important to the Hispanic community?
      
      As to 'sneaking into the country,' there was basically no bar to admission prior to the Page Act of 1875--also known as the "Asian Exclusion Act."  So early immigrants couldn't 'sneak.'  The quota system dates from 1924:
      
      "The Immigration Act of 1924 set quotas for European immigrants so that no more than 2% of the 1890 immigrant stocks were allowed into America."
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o … ted_States
      
      Today, quotas are such that legal immigration from many countries is essentially forbidden--I believe, for example, that ICE is currently working through the 'waiting list' for Mexicans whose request dates from the 1990s:
      
      "For Sergio Garcia, the magic number is 25. That's how many years he will have waited for his green card if, as he estimates, he gets it in 2019.
      
      "Garcia, 36, is one of millions of immigrants seeking a green card, or legal permanent residency in the U.S., which he has called home for most of his life. His dad, a naturalized citizen from Mexico, sponsored him, and he was approved to begin the naturalization process in 1995 at age 17.
      
      "But like many other applicants, Garcia has to wait for a green card to become available since quotas limit the number given out annually. Authorities first told him it would take three to five years to reach his “priority date” – when he could start the five-year process of getting a green card.
      
      “"I was crying about that. I’m like … how am I going to survive five years without my documents?” he recalled recently from Durham, a community outside Chico, Calif. “Little did I know that almost 19 years later I would still be in the same shape. … You’re approved but just wait around … half of your life.”
      
      I wonder how many Americans would respond, if they were to find themselves in a like situation?

      replyreport
   3. 72

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      To prevent crops from dying on the vine, un-harvested?

      replyreport
5. 82

   Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

   Apparently Doherty does not understand the meaning of "rights" as it applies to citizenship.  When one is an illegal immigrant, there are no rights of citizenship and he is flawed in his thinkging to believe there should be.  The winding route to making 15 million illegals into voters is a pipedream of the Democrats who only see the opportunity to stack the deck in their favor politically by doing so.  Let us hear a viable explanation as to why the border cannot be secured without that proposition being tied to the processing of the estimated 15 million illegals already here.  What urgency is at stake in their presence at the moment other than the fact that no one can find a way for them to vote in greater numbers.  The Republicans are not going to win any popularity contests by supporting amnesty bills or intended amnesty then full citizenship cloaked behind the mask of border security.  We have had funds authorized for border security in the past...the Democrats voted to freeze that funding as soon as they gained control of the Congress thus we can pretty much see what is going to happen as soon as they can put enough voters on their side of the books.  At the same time, without significant improvement in border security, the numbers coming across will only continue to grow as more and more is offered to those already here.  To actually believe that the described path to citizenship in the current bill would be implemented and enforced is ludicrious at best.  Getting the current legislation passed will only beef up the liberal vote in the mid-terms and move the pendulum in the Democrats favor to once again control Congress.  Once that happens, funding for border security put forth in the current legislation will be denied and the pathway to citizenship will be cleared of fines and greatly compressed.  The end result will be 15 million potential new liberal voters and a steady flow of new ones to expand and and replace them.  Those Republicans supporting this legislation are totally off their rockers and need to find a new form of work.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Doc Snowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "The end result will be 15 million potential new liberal voters and a steady flow of new ones to expand and and replace them."
      
      Hispanics as a group have several points of sympathy with conservative Republicans--strong (conservatively defined) 'family values', an entrepreneurial spirit, a religiously-oriented outlook and little sympathy abortion among them.
      
      If certain elements in the GOP are worried about Hispanic hostility, they could always try ceasing to pick fights with Hispanics--who comprise about 9% of US voters now.

      replyreport
   2. 72

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "The winding route to making 15 million illegals into voters is a pipedream of the Democrats who only see the opportunity to stack the deck in their favor politically by doing so."
      
      Eleven or 12 million is the figure most often quoted. Comprehensive immigration reform is not only supported by Democrats. Thinking Republicans support it also. Tea Party Republicans don't, and they are slitting the throat of the GOP in the long run because of the growing percentage of Latino citizens.

      replyreport
6. 86

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   "If they are so 'unskilled,' why are they dominating in so many areas of the trades?"
   
   Because they are cheap labor compared to highly-skilled American labor. Construction trade labor unions are finally becoming alarmed, because they are now losing a lot of work to illegals.
   
   The result is shoddy construction.
   
   With so many Americans out of work, why are we legalizing illegal labor? This is pure politics and buying Democrat votes. Republicans would be cutting their own throats by going along.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Doc Snowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If they were legal, they couldn't be used to hold down wages for American workers--they'd be able to join unions themselves, and would be protected by existing labor laws.  Now they don't dare complain.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Doc Snowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Oh, and if you think the quality of construction is primarily due to who drives the nail--as opposed to the ethics of the guy buying the wood (or the building permit), then I think you are deeply mistaken.

         replyreport
         1. 51

            Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Ive stayed in very expensive hotels in Mexico where light bulbs dangle from the wires in the ceilings.
            
            If you think a builder who is liable for the home built is cutting corners you are the one who is deeply mistaken!

            replyreport
      2. 72

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Very true. The Tea Partiers don't like unions, either.

         replyreport
   2. 72

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "why are we legalizing illegal labor? "
      
      Because re-patriating 11 million undocumented immigrants would not be practical or humane, not in our economic interest. Nearly all of them are performing necessary, useful jobs.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "why are we legalizing illegal labor? "
         
         No Ralph, its because the donors to both parties will benefit from the lower wages paid!
         
         And the Democrats will benefit from the votes.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Do you think it makes sense to split up families or send children back to another country where they have never lived and who don't speak the language? There are towns in the U.S. where the majority of the residents are undocumented and who own the businesses and fill the jobs. Some of these places would be ghost towns under your scenario.

            replyreport
            1. 51

               Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               What scenario Ralph?
               
               I haven't offered a scenario.
               
               Why claim I did?

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Your "scenario" clearly doesn't include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. You said "Why are we legalizing illegal labor?"

                  replyreport
7. 74

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/politics/fact-check-immigration
   In fiscal year 2011, there were 18,506 U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Southwest Border Sectors -- up steadily from 3,555 agents in 1992, according to Customs and Border Protection figures.
   
   A Pew Research Hispanic Center study finds that Border Patrol apprehensions of all unauthorized immigrants are at their lowest level since 1971. "In spite of (and perhaps because of) increases in the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents, apprehensions of Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally have plummeted in recent years—from more than 1 million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011—a likely indication that fewer unauthorized migrants are trying to cross," it concluded.
   
   Pew estimates that net migration -- newly arrived immigrants minus those leaving (forced or voluntarily) -- has come to a standstill, which it attributes to the weakened U.S. job and construction markets, border enforcement, an increase in deportations, and increased dangers associated with crossing the border.
   
   In all, there were 327,577 illegal immigrant apprehensions in 2011, according to the U.S. Border Patrol. This is the lowest number since 1972, when there were 321,326. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the 2011 figure is a 53% drop from 2008, which it says indicates that fewer people are trying to cross the border.
   
   The figures can be tough to interpret. Often, the same person is caught more than once, "and then the flip side of that phenomenon is there's no way of knowing how many you missed counting, how many do get through," said Dan Kowalski, editor of Bender's Immigration Bulletin and an immigration lawyer at the Fowler Law Firm in Austin, Texas. "So, you get what you measure. In other words, you count what you count."
   
   But even if the border could be sealed in a foolproof manner, the issue of illegal immigration would not be resolved. That's because many of those people who are in the United States without authorization have entered the country legally on a visa and simply overstayed their visa status, Kowalski said.
   
   .

   replyreport
8. 86

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   Anyone actually believe that liberal Democrats are trying to help Republicans win elections with their helpful 'advice'?

   replyreport
9. 59

   tirelesstravelerposted 12 years ago

   Thinking the GOP is loony, but not for the reasons you have come to that conclusion.

   replyreport
10. 86

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    "Because re-patriating 11 million undocumented immigrants would not be practical or humane, not in our economic interest."
    
    You mean no one is willing to pay the political price.
    
    The solution is easy...go after employers, with heavy fines or jail for anyone hiring illegals. No work means no reason to be here, so they would simply go home.
    
    Democrats want the Hispanic votes, so they won't do anything. Republicans want the cheap labor, so they won't do anything either.
    
    As always, the citizens pay the price.

    replyreport
11. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago

    I really don't think there's any more room in the "deep end"..........Democrats and other liberals have that place so crowded already.....

    replyreport
12. 86

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    Enforce the borders (like all other countries do!!), and punish severely anyone who hires an illegal alien. Problem solved! No jobs = no reason to come here and no reason to stay here either.
    
    And if Democrats are offering free advice to Republicans, just do the opposite.

    replyreport