Redstate

besides, scuttlebutt has it that Attorney General Tom Corbett is going to run for Governor in 2010. And unlike Santorum, who doesn't have a prayer, Corbett will probably win.

Anybody THAT braindead has already written him off for endorsing Specter.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Santorum undercutting Pat Toomey to endorse problematic and notably disloyal RINO Specter was a betrayal of conservatives on an epic scale.

Those who remember it and hold it against him are hardly braindead.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

certain people look at primaries as coronations?

I thought the point of primaries was to come up with the best candidate, not merely the best incumbant candidate.

candidate, not necessarily the "best" candidate. I think the Repub primaries pretty well proved that point. I can grant that McCain is the most viable in this campaign season, but no way will I concede that he was the best out there. And, EPU, your definition of conservative is on the mark 100%. Adam C, your unflagging enthusiasm for McCain is well-noted, but the rest of us have the right to our opinions as well.

And if your opinion is that "conservative" means something that no current politician could be, then so be it. If "conservative" means socially conservative regardless of the size of government, so be it.

My only major point is that once upon a time, conservatism was related to personal responsibility and the limited scope of government. In that realm, McCain is at least as conservative as any other R running for President this year.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I think you're getting pilloried here for during-primary advocacies. All candidates have to understand that getting elected is a 2-stepper - you have to win the primary first, and it's just a fact that the criticism you get from primary opponents (and their advocates) will get co-opted by general election opponents. It's life.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Depends on who the stronger candidate is. I think in AK, the challenger has a better shot in the general. In Toomey v. Specter, Specter had a better shot in the general. In Chafee v. Laffey, Chafee had a better shot.

Other people base it on something else, but if the seat is not a prohibitively Republican place then electability comes into my equation.

For the other end of the equation, I think a challenge to Hagel this year might have found support (although focus would be elsewhere b/c of the number of endangered Rs). And in some open seats, the more conservative candidate often gets support here (RS endorsed DeMint, Coburn, and Cain in their primaries).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Toomey winning the primary would have led to Hoeffel(I think thats the correct spelling!) winning the general.

... Toomey actually had a 50/50 chance of winning, compared to Santorum's 20:1 odds throughout his race with Casey.

Romney/Pace 2008

I am sure he was polling above Hoeffel at one point. However, PA is, and was then, a Democratic leaning state, and considering that Kerry carried it in 2004, it is doubtful that Toomey would have bucked the Democratic coattails. Plus, Toomey had some big problems in the general, like an unwillingness to provide earmarks, and bad constituent services; although I agree with him that these should not be considered part of the Senate job description, I also think that voters generally disagree, especially in PA.

1) No a strident social conservative whose primary issues are social conservative issues is not going to have a good time in PA. Yes, a social conservative who focuses on other things could do well there (see Sen. Casey and hopefully Pres. McCain).

2) I believe the G14 was good policy at the time (well before primary season). Just because others discounted the idea that the other 48 R Senators might not be enthused at the idea of having the Senate entirely shut down, isn't my problem. Or the fact that relying on Specter was one of those 48 was somehow not iffy.

3) McCain has been right on judges. Very right. He had concerns about nominating stealth Justices like Souter. He supported wholeheartedly Bork, Thomas, Robert and Alito. He helped make sure Democrats couldn't filibuster good judges.

Criticize him all you want on issues where he has been bad, but on judges he has been very solid and he deserves credit for it.

4) Finally, maybe we just disagree about what "conservative" means. A lot of people consider Bush conservative. But he's been the biggest spending President in history. He's expanded the size and scope of government. That is not conservative to me. McCain has a much better record of conservatism.

If conservatism now means how religious one is or how socially conservative one is, then I understand the "moderate" moniker. But I'm not about ready to just give up on the idea that small government is a conservative view.

And I still believe you can work across party lines and be a conservative. McCain may not be a partisan, but he's a conservative whether that bugs you (and Rush) or not.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Is McCain a conservative on some issues? Yes, he is, especially when it comes to Federal spending. Is McCain a liberal on some issues? Yes, he is, especially when it comes to government regulations on campaign ads, carbon cap & trade, and amnesty for illegals. You should just be happy with Sen. Santorum's endorsement, and cut out all the "Ex-Senator" snark.
It does not do our candidate any good for folks like you to continue to slap Sen. Santorum around.

If the rules are transparent and clear, and if the state has no author­ity to license businesses or restrict exports and imports, there will be no opportunities to pay bribes in those areas. Mart Laar

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

especially the attempt to make pork spending the primary measure of conservatism.

Has McCain done any heavy lifting with regards to entitlement reform? Tax cuts? Free trade?

McCain seems to hold his powder for his more liberal positions.]

McCain supporters ragging on the person who was probably the most educated anti-Jihadist in the Sentate is a mistake.

He is one of the biggest free traders in the Senate. He states such frequently on the campaign trail.

What I said was that as a leader in the Senate, what has McCain done to move the ball forward on free trade.

I'm not talking about merely voting the right way, I am talking about leadership.

Talking on the campaign trail now is not what I mean either. I'm saying that I don't remember McCain spending a lot of time on his TV appearances in the past (pre 2008 election) talking up free trade.

I have heard him on other issues.

P.S. McCain does not explain very effectively how free trade actually does help "the little guy"--which was the primary point of my criticism above

any good when Santorum openly questioned McCain's temperament and leadership ability?

How is calling him an "Ex-Senator" a "snark"?

Don't we want our elected and former elected officials to speak honestly about reasons to vote for or against various candidates?

Because there WILL be a campaign ad listing the republicans who don't think McCain has the temperament to be President.

Santorum and others hurt the party by attacking McCain temperament and leadership.

Did you say anything negative in the past about . . .

Pat Robertson
Pat Buchanon
Steve Forbes
Fred Thompson
Mike Huckabee
or any other past primary candidate?

I have serious doubts about McCain's temperment as well. I just think he would be a better CIC than Obama or Hillary.

but that doesn't mean I openly attacked their leadership and/or ability to be a sane president.

McCain's temperament is an attribute. When all your favorite congressmen who make all the "correct" conservative votes load up bills with their pork barrel projects, McCain will tell them to shove the bill up their ass.

Rick said McCain's tempermant left something to be desired and questioned MCCain's spending of political capital.

Many insiders have commented on McCain's temper. McCain's public comments to Sen. Kyl are ample evidence of that.

McCain does chose to spend his political capital in ways that I disagree with. If Republicans are not free to say that in a primary, then maybe I need to cease being a Republican?

"I think that to me it is a relevant issue for people to consider," he said. "I think it's one without question that factors into his [b]ability to govern, to form coalitions, and to get things done.[/b]"

“As a conservative, I don’t agree with McCain on many issues and [b]I don’t think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction[/b],’ Santorum says in the call, according to the Romney source.

Didn't say $#%^$$# McCain, like McCain did to Sen. Kyl.

If we aren't free to say "I think you should consider the temperment" of candidate X in a primary, then what the heck are we doing holding primaries?

McCain said worse about Bush in 2000. Bush became the nominee. Would you chastise McCain in 2000? Maybe as punishment he should withdraw now?

Its not like Rick purchased tv time for an ad. He made comments he felt honestly to be true.

The biggest impact Rick had on McCain was pointing out that McCain wasn't a big "do-er" on pro-life causes.

If that is out of bounds, then I am out of the game.

I don't care that he endorsed Romney, I don't care if states his disagreements, but he openly brought into question McCain's temperament and leadership ability. He hurt the Republican party when he did that.

I have heard Newt Gingrich addressed as Speaker, and I have heard Sam Nunn addressed as Senator. Why add the EX-. It is not necessary.

If the rules are transparent and clear, and if the state has no author­ity to license businesses or restrict exports and imports, there will be no opportunities to pay bribes in those areas. Mart Laar

but I didn't. I don't consider ex-SEN snark, it's the same notation they use in Hotline which I have generally adopted. That's also why I often capitalize GOV, SEN, REP and string together titles. It's not pretty but it's efficient.

I thought Santorum was a pretty good Senator. But he spent the last few months (even after the primary was over) attacking McCain. So I think he can handle having someone point out that his strategy in Pennsylvania failed and that perhaps the next candidate should try something different (we can argue over what).

I think it is entirely reasonable to say that Sen. McCain is more conservative than Pres. Bush. It is debatable but a lot of it comes down to what you consider the foundation of conservatism.

By the standards of some here, Reagan was no conservative either (i.e. amnesty, tax-hiking, O'Connor-appointing, etc). If "conservative" is some standard that no real person can attain, fine. Then we're just arguing past one another.

And I don't consider Comprehensive Immigration Reform liberal but I don't want to spend a whole thread on that.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

because you just won't leave it alone.

I don't feel like debating every point, because I think we've covered most/all of that one way or another, and let's just say that I disagree profoundly with #2, and with the "very right" claim of #3.

But one point I want to make, and I want to be very clear on. The definition of "conservative" is not elastic enough to include John McCain. I will allow so much as to say that his sentiments (not to be confused with "heart", "philosophy", or "stands") are frequently (not to be confused with "usually" or "always") on track with conservatism. That's as far as I go. His heart and his instincts are decidedly NOT conservative. After thousands of column-inches of arguing with my dear friend absentee, a noted and formidable McCain advocate, I even wrested from HIM a confession that McCain is not conservative.

This is not Bitter Fred Tears, and this is not an idle opinion. This is important, because conservatism is a set of principles that have a history and a body of thinking -starting ostensibly with the thinking of Edmund Burke, flowing though Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, then we fast-forward to Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and Russell Kirk.

You and I, Fred Thompson, CPAC,and the ACU do not decide what conservatism is. Those guys in the preceding paragraph do - and I'm dead certain that Fred Thompson, CPAC, and the ACU will agree with me on that. For just a quick primer on the fundamental heart condition that make up a conservative, read this Russell Kirk essay.

You can cite all DAMN day (and you just beat this to death) a list of deeds and words from McCain that track with conservatism. I can cite all day (and I desisted a long time ago) a whole list of deeds and words from McCain that reveal his heart, principles, and instincts to be NOT conservative.

I've stated before, he's an acceptable candidate, and I will vote for him. But he is NOT conservative, and your preaching to the contrary is profoundly irritating.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

.

nt

There isn't much else to say. He is acceptable, especially compared to the alternatives, and I will vote for him, but I will hardly fault other conservatives for being truthful about his lack of conservatism in many areas.

You're standard of "conservative" is high enough that no one can qualify. Fred and McCain had very similar records, it's why they were my #1 and #2 choices. But if you've bought into the Rush Version of McCain, I can't budge you.

McCain has supported limited government more than Bush or Huck or Romney or Rudy. He and Fred have been similar here. McCain opposed Bush's Medicare Drug Bribe. He opposed the slide into the pork-barrel GOP along with Coburn.

He has a strong record on judges that you just sidestep and ignore because you don't want to deal it. His record on judges is as strong as any other Republican and perhaps stronger due to his prescience about Souter and stealth nominees. And he has spent time and leadership on making sure good judges get nominated and confirmed.

McCain's instinct is for less government and more personal responsibility, the hallmarks of conservatism. From opposing bailouts to being a watchdog for wasted Pentagon spending, he has been a leader in that regard as well.

It irritated me that Rush/Hannity/etc only talked about one sliver of McCain's record. So maybe it's just your turn to be irritated.

If you're standard of conservatism is so high that no current politician fits the bill, then fine. I'm not sure how you can include Reagan with the loftiness of your standards (O'Connor, tax hikes, amnesty, working with Dems). But if it's a realistic moniker that can apply to mere mortals, McCain has as much a claim to it as any of the primary nominees this cycle. Fred and him had probably the strongest claim to it, which makes sense since their records are very similar.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

.

Reagan was a net tax cutter. McCain rarely supports tax cuts.

Reagan took the lead to push tax cuts through. McCain actively opposed tax cuts.

Reagan supported amnesty on the assumption that the border would be sealed and the issue ended. Reagan never insulted those who disagreed with his immigration ideas. McCain insults his fellow Republicans, and led the charge despite that past failures of the 86 amnesty.

McCain hasn't had the opportunity yet to nominate any judges. If you don't think he will purposely nominate an O'Connor, then I think you overestimate the man.

Cutting wasteful spending is good. Articulating why limited government and capitalism help the ordinary man on the street is better.

McCain is not in Reagan's league. If McCain supporters could stop trying to reduce Reagan, the rest of us could better be on board the Maverick Express. My support of McCain is conditional on not airbrushing history.

McCain is a great man in many respects. He is not conservative. Conservatives do not get most heated while taking on other conservatices. Conservatives do not aid and abet attacks on free market capitalism.

He had his own tax cut proposal, so there is no need to lie and say he opposes tax cuts.

You bring out all the biases in plain view.

"McCain rarely supports tax cuts."

No he opposed one tax cut. He supported every other one over the past 20 years and never supported a tax increase. But you don't hear about that in conservative media.

"If you don't think he will purposely nominate an O'Connor, then I think you overestimate the man."

I don't and I don't see any evidence to say he would. He didn't like the Souter nomination because it was a stealth nomination and resisted a quick endorsement while other Rs like Gramm went ahead and endorsed him. He was excited about Roberts and Alito and used his credibility to help win over moderate Democrats. Even in unguarded "off the record" moments, he has been "caught" talking about how to get good conservatives on the bench.

On the other hand, there is not actual votes or record of anything to make someone think he wouldn't nominate good judges.

Finally, this isn't about bringing Reagan down. This is about the shifting goalposts of what it takes to be "conservative." Now you have to scream social conservatism from the rooftop or you're not conservative. That's not what it used to mean. McCain's emphasis on limited government and focus on national pride and honor as well as his military sacrifice and sense of duty make him as much of a conservative as anyone currently with a shot at the Presidency.

I've watched enough people embrace Bush conservatism without batting an eye about his entire abandonment of small government principles. And I'm not going to sit here and let that new definition of conservatism gobble up the old. There aren't many people in Washington with as strong a record of fighting government growth in size and scope as McCain, Coburn, and Flake.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

We have had two significant sets of tax cuts since 2000. My recollection is that McCain actively opposed both. He attacked them using the language of the left. Tax cuts for the rich, etc. Not very conservative. McCain is the reason why we now have tax cuts that will expire, instead of being a position where Democrats would have to affirmatively pass a tax cut.

Was McCain more conservative pre-2000? Yes. I'll even go so far to say that McCain was more conservative in 1984 than Reagan was in 1948. So what? We are talking about the persons that they were in seeking the Presidency. McCain is probably more conservative now then I was when I was 4 years old and I thought people should just give me what I want.

I never said anyone had to screem social conservativism from any rooftops. I do think social issues are underrated---especially in blue states like Michigan, West Virginia, Penn, etc.

What I am saying is that Mccain is good on issues that used to be shared by both conservatives and patriotic Jackson democrats. McCain is not otherwise invested in issues that generally get conservatives motivated to work for candidates. McCain is not excited about free market capitalism. He isn't. Its not something he feels in his gut. He is not and never will be passionate about tax cuts. He is and never will be passionate about small business owners, and how government makes their jobs harder.

we all have different passions. We invest our energies differently. Besides military/national security, McCain's hottest issues are issues that his positions are the least conservative.

"compassionate" version of conservatism. Its just that while small government and related fiscal conservatism are primary parts of conservatism, just that by itself isn't conservative. You would get a lot of Libertarians (and maybe even a few liberals) agreeing on that who are far, far away from conservatism.

their relatives are incompatiable...but Adam if you keep telling yourself that one does not undercut the other you will be lying to yourself.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Whatis Janis?

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

there is no state left in the Union that is not forking over millions/billions on behalf of illegal immigrants. In Nashville, Tn alone, the city ponies up at least 12 million per year just for English as a second language teachers. And, yes, they teach children who speak other than Hispanic, but that is by far the largest group they deal with. In Tennessee, the TennCare program (HillaryCare local) has spent billions over the past 10 years and much of it has gone to illegals for healthcare. And that doesn't count the money spent daily on a whole slew of other programs--law enforcement agencies alone are having to increase their budgets to deal with the constant influx of prisoners who are illegals. A close relative works in the detention facility in one of the largest counties in middle Tennessee and sees this daily. The list goes on and on....

What's that have to do with amnesty again?

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

What's that have to do with amnesty again?

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

If we went with the program that McCain-Kennedy proposed, do you REALLY think that we could implement it without another huge expansion of government? If the ICE/INS agencies cannot do all the work they are presently tasked with, then how in the world do you think they could go through all the paperwork required of the new program without vastly increasing their staffs? And that won't be free--it's going to come out of OUR pockets, right? And don't tell me that the libs won't be front and center with every entitlement program that they can come up with, just waiting with big old smiles to buy the votes. And who's going to pay for these programs? That's right--us.

.

Let's "focus like a lazer" on the question at hand.

I didn't mention McCain-Kennedy. I asked how "Amnesty" has anything to do with the size of government. Not guest workers, not any sort of graduated procedure, just straight "OK, you're a citizen now," i.e. 1986.

Besides, your question manipulative and meaningless anyway. It's the SCOPE of government that conservatives are, or should be, concerned with. Immigration is a vital function of what the government does. No sane person can dispute that. It is one of their primary functions. Complaining that it might need more money to complete its mission is like liberals whining about the military budget. You don't cut corners on vital governmental functions. You cut corners, or cut entire programs, on things that it shouldn't be doing anyway.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

That's a point that just never seems to get through to those who like the idea of amnesty for all the illegals already here. They claim to be for limited government and fewer entitlement programs, yet the illegal situation costs states and the feds billions per year. This does not compute.

Well a pure amnesty would be the cheapest way to stop spending federal money on immigration enforcement. But I'm guessing that's not what you had in mind.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

and big dollars on entitlements and public services.

You know that spending on medical care, welfare programs, education, and other public services for illegal immigrants far outweighs the current spending on border security.

This argument is beneath you. It may be the first comment you have written that wasn't in good faith.

.

is looking at cost without benefit. Have you calculated how much wealth creation these workers have added to the economy? How much added demand they have added to the economy?

Counting only the costs is disingenuous.

But if we want to talk about reducing the "costs" of illegal immigration, that means talking about enforcement costs. If they were all to become legal tomorrow, the other costs (and benefits) wouldn't change.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

of their earnings to another country, so the net gain on the economy likely isn't much. I realize that's unsupported opinion, so if you have facts that can counter my statement, I'm all ears.

"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson

Prof. Sowell would say that you are arguing the broken glass paradigm. A broken window does generate economic activitiy if it is replaced, but had the window not been broken, the resources could have been used to actually grow the economy.

I think the conservative solution would be to allow more people into the country legally thereby lifting the governmental barrier to people who want to work to support their families.

But this is another area where "conservative" has shifted from being pro-immigrant, optimistic, and pro-assimilation to a protectionist, anti-immigrant view that Tancredoites push to keep out people who are different.

I'm proud to be pro-immigrant and support higher levels of legal immigration. And I do so because of my faith in American and its opportunities for those who come to work here.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

don't mix up the two like they are the same...the legal immigrant is not stealing people's identities...the illegal immigrant is....the legal immigrant is paying all taxes....the illegal is not....the legal immigrant will have to prove eligibility (financially) to be able to bring their relatives to America....the illegal does not....why if I didn't know better the way you threw that word immigrant out there I would think you were inserting a strawman into the argument....like the NY Times much...they use immigrant also.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Tancredo and his ill are anti-immigrant. I know there are many people upset with illegal immigration who don't fall into that category. My beef is with the Tancreoites, not the later group.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Tancredo and . . . .

Adam, you are doing what the NYT does. Pick an outlier, beat the heck of the straw man, and annoy the heck of the other side.

I am first generation American in my family. Most of my friends are either immigrants or first generation. Nobody appreciates the country like immigrants (veterans excepted). As a whole, we are the most anti-illegal immigration folks you will find since we did things legally.

Illegal immigration is taking cuts in front of people who play by the rules. Is anything less conservative that rewarding cheaters over those who follow the rules?

was that conservatism used to be pro-immigrant. We could solve most of the "illegal immigration" problems by increasing legal immigration. But that idea doesn't get off the ground because "conservatives" are scared of letting in too many people from another place and those people eating different foods and having taco stands. I think those "conservatives" have lost their faith in America's ability to assimilate.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

The reason why we don't have more open immigration is because of the welfare state and entitlement programs.

Milton Friedman was a big open borders guy, but even he admitted it wouldn't work with entitlement programs.

I am very pro immigrants who will play by the rules and are not seeking to bring about Sharia law in the US

It IS all about following the law. Higher levels of immigration? Fine--as long as it's legal. As to assimilation? Again, fine. But the counties around mine who have a large illegal population seem to have no interest in assimilating. They speak nothing but Spanish and persist in the customs they brought with them--most notably, driving while drunk as they have said it is a sign of being "macho." Many of them are arrested on a weekly basis for this and are also found to have no license, no insurance, etc.

If they are so interested in assimilating, then how come they refuse to follow so many of our laws? Laws, I might add, that legal citizens are forced to follow?

If so, don't make me laugh. If you actually think you have a serious illegal immigrant problem, you're proving basically every critic you have right.

Tennessee isn't even in the top 10 states for illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants make up less then 2% of your population.

http://www.uslaw.com/bulletin/where-do-illegal-immigrants-live.php?p=809

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

here, it's not the least bit funny. And I don't care whether we are in the top 10 or the bottom 20, it's still a huge problem. You can prove anything with statistics, but I'm talking about the everyday lives of people who are affected here by an illegal population that insists on bringing their own culture here and then insisting that the rest of us adapt to it instead of the other way around. Are we supposed to sit down and shut up until we statistically reach the top 10? Sorry, I'd rather deal with the situation before it gets that bad.

I thought it wasn't about pushing out people who were different?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

blend your culture with the one you are looking to become a part of--not insisting on holding onto your home country language, flag, holidays, social customs and then demanding that your new country give them precedence or equivalence.

Oh yah, people celebrating cinco de mayo...that's some scary stuff!

I think they brought some weird hot-sauce and the Mexican Hat Dance! Can't have that!

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

You can prove anything with statistics, but I'm talking about the everyday lives of people who are affected here by an illegal population that insists on bringing their own culture here and then insisting that the rest of us adapt to it instead of the other way around.

So you get a few random Mexicans wandering around wearing speaking Spanish and eating too many tacos and you freak out.

And you wonder why people call your type "nativists".

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

"a few random Mexicans..." and I am not freaking out. I'm sick and tired of being considered a nativist because I follow the laws of my country and expect others to do likewise.

I'm off to do some checking of those lovely statistics that you revere. Will get back to you later.

It's not ignorant. It's a FACT. Tennessee has NO illegal immigration problem in comparison to most other states. There are merely a "few random Mexicans" so to speak in Tennessee. Yet for some reason, you go on and on about how big of a deal it is, you feel threatened by new "culture", assume that they drive drunk more often then others, etc. That's pretty much the definition of nativism.

You aren't comfortable with anybody but the people around you that you are totally use to, that share your very narrow view of the world. That's clear. I just wish you weren't so blind to it.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

According to FAIR, as of November 8th, 2007, Tennesseeans now spend 285 million dollars per year for illegal alien K-12 education, health care and incarceration of criminal illegal aliens. In the same article, the estimated illegal population in Tennessee has grown from 46,000 in 2000 to around 100,000 in 2007. So that works out to about $2850.00 per illegal spent by the taxpayers in this state.

If you think that is just fine and dandy, then me and my extended family will be over at your house later this week with our hands out and we expect cash, no personal checks accepted.

And if you want ANYONE to believe that you are dealing in good faith here, then stop the name-calling about "racists and nativists." I am neither and your prejudices about rural southerners say much more about you than anything I have said.

My parents grew up in Chicago where they took us regularly on vacations. I lived out west for 4 years amongst a varied population. This whole issue for me is solely and simply about insisting on people following the law and not rewarding illegal behaviour with all kinds of benefits.

"...This whole issue for me is solely and simply about insisting on people following the law and not rewarding illegal behaviour with all kinds of benefits."

Amen and amen!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

You are really, really clueless. I DID NOT ASK YOU ABOUT THE COSTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, NOR HAVE I EVER DENIED THAT THERE IS A COST. I asked you about the costs of amnesty. Big difference.

That said, Citing FAIR about immigration is like citing Code Pink about military matters. I wouldn't trust them if they told me the sky was blue.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

wandering around and eating tacos." What does THAT have to do with amnesty, hmmmm? This discussion may have started about amnesty, but it went off to a whole host of related issues, including drunk driving, expenditures by states on illegal aliens, etc. And you questioned anyone/everyone's position on same if they don't agree with you. So I was answering in the way you indicated you found legitimate--although I could have predicted you wouldn't have found any source I came up with as reliable. So I read up on FAIR and found it to be highly praised by a bipartisan bunch of folks. Irregardless, I found the same stats on Tennessee expenditures in other places as well, but there's not much point in listing them as I am sure you will find fault with those as well.

Again, this about following the existing laws, nothing else.

Nothing. If you didn't notice, you are answering an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POST that I wrote to you some time ago. Until you randomly posted FAIR numbers, we were talking about a totally different topic.

You seem really confused and unable to stick to any given issue at hand. You seem to assume your position is true, so logic, reason, or any coherent thought is not needed to defend it. You think can answer questions dealing with stereotypical views with the costs of illegal immigration to local and state governments, even when the question that you seemed to go seeking the numbers for was for the costs of amnesty, not the costs of illegal immigration.

You aren't talking reality. These are separate issues that must be dealt with separately to come to any sort of understanding on them.

I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

sterling example of a fair-minded American and I am a filthy racist, nativist, slack-jawed, southern yokel who runs screaming into the woods at the sight of a taco. I am also a tight-fisted, Scrooge-hearted, mean old lady who faints dead away at the sight of the Mexican flag and who has the vapors over Cinco De Mayo and who would never, no, NEVER, drink a nasty margharita or a pitcher of sangria on a hot summer's day.

But I still stand by what this is about for me--I have to follow the law, so do they.

All I'm asking you to do is make a coherent argument and stick to the topic. You can't seem to do that.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

goalposts. Ergo, I'm done wasting my time on you. Given the other commentors who have disagreed with you and your remarks in return, you apparently cannot abide anyone with a different opinion, which, correct me if I'm wrong, makes you the intolerant one.

Reality is not your friend, apparently.

I asked you about the costs of amnesty. You responded by talking about the costs of illegal immigration.

I made a comment on your comment about the effect of immigration in Tennessee, in which you damn Mexican culture in broad, meaningless terms. I call you on it. You respond by asserting that you aren't a nativist but say Mexicans are drunk drivers.

It's not me who's got a problem here. You have an opinion, fine. DEFEND IT. Don't change the subject. Don't make broad assertions you can't back up. Stick to the issue. That's all I'm asking, but apparently that's too much.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I'm avoiding immigration arguments these days for just this reason.
Somehow, someway, if you oppose people coming into this country illegally and then reaping the benefits, you are a racist or nativist.
Bah. Whatever.

Again, preach it-But I still stand by what this is about for me--I have to follow the law, so do they.

And with that, good night from Old Europe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

I've been here before with the same results, so I will probably not bother to argue this subject again. Although it would be interesting if someone could come up with the expenditures on illegal immigration since Reagan's amnesty in 1986. THAT would be the true cost of amnesty.

Hey! You finally said something intelligent and on point enough to merit actually giving a reasoned response to!

It is true, a number like that would be worth knowing, but it's hardly the end of the question. While there are certainly costs to illegal immigration, there are also economic benefits. So any costs would also have to be offset by the economic benefits.

Likewise, while I don't deny that it is POSSIBLE for amnesty to encourage more illegal immigration, it certainly cannot account for all illegal immigration, or even most illegal immigration. Obviously, that would be hard to calculate, but again, merely plugging in that number wouldn't work either.

Anyhow, I'm not actually for "amnesty", at least depending on how you define it. I just object to simple-minded solutions and blatantly bigoted stereotypes of immigrants, legal or otherwise, that are counterproductive in actually dealing with the real problems it presents.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html#Methodology

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Good, then you weren't the object of my comment. I'm talking about the Tancredoites who support lower levels of legal immigration as well. They are anti-immigrant.

"most notably, driving while drunk as they have said it is a sign of being "macho." "

I'd love to see some statistics showing this is more prevalent among illegal immigrants than the general population. Otherwise, I presume it's bald stereotyping.

Assimilation has generally been more successful among immigrants who are here legally. It's one reason the de facto amnesty he have right now is a failure. If we passed some form of legalization or guest worker program, it would help with assimilation.

But at the bottom of all of this is a simple question. On the spectrum of crimes from jaywalking to murder, where does crossing the border illegal fall? If you think it's closer to jaywalking, you probably don't have a problem with legalization. If you think it's closer to rape and murder, then you probably have a problem with it.

Finally, for some people (including many Tancredoites), it is about pushing out people who are different. See his comments about Miami.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

officers that I have spoken to in my county and the county next to me. According to them, at least three quarters of the DUI's they deal with are illegal Hispanic males who have told them that driving drunk is their custom at home and it is about being "macho." These same officers have also said that they have seldom found an Hispanic woman driver who was DUI. And of all the ones they have stopped (male) who were DUI, NONE of them had licenses, nor insurance.

As to your scale of where I'd rank those who cross the border illegally, I'd put it right where it belongs--they trespassed. Jaywalking is crossing the street in the middle instead of at the crosswalks. Trespassing is going where you have no right to go legally.

Yah, because God knows, America doesn't have a problem with non-illegals drunk driving. If we just got rid of all the Mexicans we wouldn't have a problem. /sarcasm

I still can't figure out how you can believe these things and then go nuts when people accuse you of nativism or flat out racism.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I still can't figure out how you can believe these things and then go nuts when people accuse you of nativism or flat out racism.

Check out my comment just below. Unless you can convince me that Hispanics in North Carolina are more likely to DWI than elsewhere in the country, I think you have an insult that you need to withdraw.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Actually, I not only don't apologize, I double down. You're showing yourself to not only be nativists, but at least latently racist.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

You are showing yourself to be an ignorant cretin. Since you won't read my comment below, I'll recopy it here. Please explain why 18 percent of Hispanics in traffic accidents in North Carolina are drunk, compared to 7 percent of whites and blacks.

Save the ham-handed accusations of racism for the lefty blogs where it belongs. If you can't back up your argument with anything better than that, I really wonder why you post here at Redstate.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

I already did read it. It's still meaningless and latently racist.

There could be a billi