Bush riling base

[CARLHAYDEN]

I am waiting for further polls to be released in the wake of Bush's concession that he DOES favor amnesty for illegal aliens, but the following numbers taken at a time when Bush was SAYING he did not support amnesty are very shocking.

CBS poll of 4/6-9/06

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W Bush is handling the issue of immigration?

Party                    Approve          Disapprove         Unsure

Republicans               42%                  41%              17%

Democrats                 18                     63                  19

Independents            20                     55                  25

Now, just for comparison, lets look at the LA Times exit poll of 11/02/04

Party                           Voted for:

                              Bush          Kerry

Republican               94                6

Democrat                 12              88

Independents          48              49

Now, while the support for Bush's immigration policy is slightly greater among Democrats than voted for him in 2004, his policy attracts less than half of the support he gained from either Republicans or Independents in 2004!

Add to this Bush has been absolutely rude to Senators Kyl and Cronyn as well as Speaker Hastert.

Kind of reminds me of another Bush who raised taxes and approved of gun control.  The prime difference being that the people do not have the opportunity to vote against another duplicitious Bush.

I suspect that if the election were held today, Bush could not get the support of two thirds of self-identified Republicans, and would lose by a landslide even to Kerry!

[Alcon]

I disagree with your final assertion.  I do not think that the people disapproving of Bush on immigration would vote for Kerry in great numbers.  They might stay home, but in reality, I think it is gas prices that would screw over Bush this time around.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I disagree with your final assertion.  I do not think that the people disapproving of Bush on immigration would vote for Kerry in great numbers.  They might stay home, but in reality, I think it is gas prices that would screw over Bush this time around.

Please reread my final assertion.  I did not say that they would vote for Kerry, but rather that Kerry would win in a landslide.

I suspect many of them would omit to vote for President, and many other would find a protest vehicle to support (as was the case for Perot in 1992).

[Alcon]

I disagree with your final assertion.  I do not think that the people disapproving of Bush on immigration would vote for Kerry in great numbers.  They might stay home, but in reality, I think it is gas prices that would screw over Bush this time around.

Please reread my final assertion.  I did not say that they would vote for Kerry, but rather that Kerry would win in a landslide.

I suspect many of them would omit to vote for President, and many other would find a protest vehicle to support (as was the case for Perot in 1992).

Do you mean that one-third of self-identified Repulicans will vote for someone other than Bush, or that one-third of self-identified Republicans would either not vote for Bush or not vote?  If you mean the former, then I have to ask who in the world they would be voting for; if you mean the latter, I doubt two-thirds of Republicans voted in the last election anyway.

[A18]

When did Bush say he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants again?

[Akno21]

Most Republicans would still suck it up and vote for Bush as a way to prevent John Kerry from becoming President. As long as Bush runs an effective smear campaign on Kerry, he'd win.

[CARLHAYDEN]

When did Bush say he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants again?

http://imigration.about.com/library/weekly/aa072401a.htm

[CARLHAYDEN]

I disagree with your final assertion.  I do not think that the people disapproving of Bush on immigration would vote for Kerry in great numbers.  They might stay home, but in reality, I think it is gas prices that would screw over Bush this time around.

Please reread my final assertion.  I did not say that they would vote for Kerry, but rather that Kerry would win in a landslide.

I suspect many of them would omit to vote for President, and many other would find a protest vehicle to support (as was the case for Perot in 1992).

Do you mean that one-third of self-identified Repulicans will vote for someone other than Bush, or that one-third of self-identified Republicans would either not vote for Bush or not vote?  If you mean the former, then I have to ask who in the world they would be voting for; if you mean the latter, I doubt two-thirds of Republicans voted in the last election anyway.

It would depend upon who the other candidates are as to the distribution of the Republican voters.

1. A small minority would vote for the Democrat (more, if he was reasonable),
2. Some would vote for a third party/independent candidate (depends a lot on the alternative available, and
3. Some would vote for other offices but abstain from voting for President.

Just a month ago Bush was saying (lying) that he wasn't for amnesty.  Today he acknowledges that he is for amnesty.

[MODU]

When did Bush say he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants again?

http://imigration.about.com/library/weekly/aa072401a.htm

Which article?  The only thing on there which I see discussing Bush is the pro's/con's of his guest worker program.  I'm not seeing anything that says he supports amnesty (and I don't have time to read each and every article on there).

[Alcon]

I disagree with your final assertion.  I do not think that the people disapproving of Bush on immigration would vote for Kerry in great numbers.  They might stay home, but in reality, I think it is gas prices that would screw over Bush this time around.

Please reread my final assertion.  I did not say that they would vote for Kerry, but rather that Kerry would win in a landslide.

I suspect many of them would omit to vote for President, and many other would find a protest vehicle to support (as was the case for Perot in 1992).

Do you mean that one-third of self-identified Repulicans will vote for someone other than Bush, or that one-third of self-identified Republicans would either not vote for Bush or not vote?  If you mean the former, then I have to ask who in the world they would be voting for; if you mean the latter, I doubt two-thirds of Republicans voted in the last election anyway.

It would depend upon who the other candidates are as to the distribution of the Republican voters.

1. A small minority would vote for the Democrat (more, if he was reasonable),
2. Some would vote for a third party/independent candidate (depends a lot on the alternative available, and
3. Some would vote for other offices but abstain from voting for President.

Just a month ago Bush was saying (lying) that he wasn't for amnesty.  Today he acknowledges that he is for amnesty.

We already know who the available alternatives were.  Peroutka might pick up a few voters, but he was such a non-factor, I doubt it would matter all that much anyway.

I think that you underestimate the anti-Kerry sentiment among Republicans.  There were plenty of people who disapproved of Bush even back then on the GOP side; for the most part, they held their noses and voted for the man.  That is how he won.

[A18]

When did Bush say he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants again?

http://imigration.about.com/library/weekly/aa072401a.htm

I don't see anything about amnesty.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I disagree with your final assertion.  I do not think that the people disapproving of Bush on immigration would vote for Kerry in great numbers.  They might stay home, but in reality, I think it is gas prices that would screw over Bush this time around.

Please reread my final assertion.  I did not say that they would vote for Kerry, but rather that Kerry would win in a landslide.

I suspect many of them would omit to vote for President, and many other would find a protest vehicle to support (as was the case for Perot in 1992).

Do you mean that one-third of self-identified Repulicans will vote for someone other than Bush, or that one-third of self-identified Republicans would either not vote for Bush or not vote?  If you mean the former, then I have to ask who in the world they would be voting for; if you mean the latter, I doubt two-thirds of Republicans voted in the last election anyway.

It would depend upon who the other candidates are as to the distribution of the Republican voters.

1. A small minority would vote for the Democrat (more, if he was reasonable),
2. Some would vote for a third party/independent candidate (depends a lot on the alternative available, and
3. Some would vote for other offices but abstain from voting for President.

Just a month ago Bush was saying (lying) that he wasn't for amnesty.  Today he acknowledges that he is for amnesty.

We already know who the available alternatives were.  Peroutka might pick up a few voters, but he was such a non-factor, I doubt it would matter all that much anyway.

I think that you underestimate the anti-Kerry sentiment among Republicans.  There were plenty of people who disapproved of Bush even back then on the GOP side; for the most part, they held their noses and voted for the man.  That is how he won.

I've become accustomed to Alcon consistently and reflexively disagreeing.

I cite facts, he cites his vast understanding of everything.

[CARLHAYDEN]

When did Bush say he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants again?

http://imigration.about.com/library/weekly/aa072401a.htm

Which article?  The only thing on there which I see discussing Bush is the pro's/con's of his guest worker program.  I'm not seeing anything that says he supports amnesty (and I don't have time to read each and every article on there).

Let me see.

If Bush doesn't call his program 'amnesty, then he isn't in favor of amnesty even though his program meets the definition of amnesty.

Amnesty - The act of an authority by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

Pardon -  Release fromthe legal penalties of an offense

[CARLHAYDEN]

Just another piece of information on the public attitude on illegal immigration.

Recently a KAET polls founds that in Arizona

"57 per cent want to build a fence along the state's border with Mexico and 63 percent want National Guard troops to keep enforce the law there, and 83 percent said that businesses that fail to the legal status of workers should be penalized."

Source, Arizona Daily Star, Section B, page 6, 4/27/06

[Nym90]

Cracking down on companies that hire illegal immigrants would be, I think, the most effective thing to do overall, though obviously it's not necessarily an easy thing to do.

But if illegals can't get jobs, they definitely wouldn't come here. There's no doubt this would be an excellent solution to the problem if it could be implemented.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I do think that people who hire illegal aliens should be punished.

Fining companies frequently too often represents punishing stockholders (who im many instances are retirement funds).

Hold the officers of companies personally responsible, fining them and imprisoning repeat egregious offenders.

[MODU]

Let me see.

If Bush doesn't call his program 'amnesty, then he isn't in favor of amnesty even though his program meets the definition of amnesty.

Amnesty - The act of an authority by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

Pardon -  Release fromthe legal penalties of an offense

You are right . .  Amnesty is a pardon for those who are here illegally.  However, there is only one plan proposed right now that would be considered Amnesty:

- Bush's program is to bring foreign workers into the country legally, having them work towards the possibility of obtaining permanent residence (not Amnesty). 
- The Senate plan would have granted illegals credit for time in the country towards citizenship (Amnesty). 
- The House plan would have made them and their supporters criminals (Not Amnesty).

Place your anger where it belongs . . . The Senate.

[Alcon]

CARL,

I do not have a vast understanding of everything.  The information being discussed here is one of the few issues on which I am even vaguely competent.  If you disagree, feel free to point out why.  Where would these votes be going?

I do not reflexively disagree with you.  A lot, sure, but that's just because I disagree with you on a lot of things.  My replying to your topic clearly shows I value and am interested in your opinions, even if they aren't the same as mine.  Hence, forum.

If I didn't respect your views, I would tell you.  I haven't, except in maybe one or two cases, said so.  I respect them.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let me see.

If Bush doesn't call his program 'amnesty, then he isn't in favor of amnesty even though his program meets the definition of amnesty.

Amnesty - The act of an authority by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

Pardon -  Release fromthe legal penalties of an offense

You are right . .  Amnesty is a pardon for those who are here illegally.  However, there is only one plan proposed right now that would be considered Amnesty:

- Bush's program is to bring foreign workers into the country legally, having them work towards the possibility of obtaining permanent residence (not Amnesty). 
- The Senate plan would have granted illegals credit for time in the country towards citizenship (Amnesty). 
- The House plan would have made them and their supporters criminals (Not Amnesty).

Place your anger where it belongs . . . The Senate.

Let me provide you with a url

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041110-123424-5467r.htm

Bush supports the Senate plan.

While Bush lied a month ago about his plan, he has come out for amnesty.

[MODU]

Let me provide you with a url

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041110-123424-5467r.htm

Bush supports the Senate plan.

While Bush lied a month ago about his plan, he has come out for amnesty.

hahaha . . . nothing in your article (from November 2004) discusses Bush promoting amnesty (Amnesty, as used in the discussion as making people legal permanent residents).  The only thing close to it is in the second paragraph where it states:  "The president met privately in the Oval Office with Sen. John McCain to discuss jump-starting a stalled White House initiative that would grant legal status to millions of immigrants who broke the law to enter the United States."  All this is say is that Bush is trying to get these people documented one way or another and placed into a guest-worker program.  He is in no way trying to grant these people citizenship nor permanent residence.  That was the Senate Bill you are thinking of.  (Again, an article that is 18 months old.  Care to find a more recent one?)

[CARLHAYDEN]

According to the existing law, deportment is the penalty for those found to have illegally entered the county.

Bush was to keep them in the country by giving them amnesty.

[MODU]

According to the existing law, deportment is the penalty for those found to have illegally entered the county.

Yes, it is.  Unfortunately we have 20+ years of illegals to deport, which we do not have the resources nor finances to handle in a short amount of time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously you are stuck on that point of view, and so I won't waste any more of my time on it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hmm.

Lets see just how your argument plays out.

We do not close ALL murders in this country.

Ergo,we should give up and grant amnesty to all who committed murders because it would take too much time and effort to apprehend them.

See the fallacy in the argument.

[Giant Saguaro]

Well that's I why I think a president usually becomes his own worst enemy in the second term. No one to run against again. Little accountability unless the opposition gets a huge advantage in Congress, and then everything is just deadlocked. Unless at some point he might want to run for some other office, but I don't really see why. Probably why the second term if often seen by many as a time to "return favors."

People also want something done about the gasoline prices and despite profits souring, a windfall tax is off the table.

[MODU]

Hmm.

Lets see just how your argument plays out.

We do not close ALL murders in this country.

Ergo,we should give up and grant amnesty to all who committed murders because it would take too much time and effort to apprehend them.

See the fallacy in the argument.

hahaha . . . nice try.  That's almost an Opie-ism (but you forgot to say Prude).