In her latest editorial Peggy Noonan makes Laura Ingraham look like George W’s best friend.
Archives for May 2007
Folks at the State Capitol are worried that the GOP base, which is furious with the Senate’s immigration bill, will withhold critical support from the Party, both in terms of dollars and volunteer man hours. Adding to their concerns is a story in today’s Washington Times which details a 40% drop in donations from the small donor base that is so critical to the national GOP’s success.
According to the Times, “The Republican National Committee, hit by a grass-roots donors’ rebellion over President Bush’s immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, Ralph Z. Hallow will report Friday in The Washington Times. Faced with an estimated 40 percent fall-off in small-donor contributions and aging phone-bank equipment that the RNC said would cost too much to update, Anne Hathaway, the committee’s chief of staff, summoned the solicitations staff last week and told them they were out of work, effective immediately, the fired staffers told The Times.”
The RNC is denying that the firings had anything to do with decreased donations, cleverly claiming that “Any assertion that overall donations have gone down is patently false,” according to RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt, who added, “We continue to out raise our Democrat counterpart by a substantive amount (nearly double).” Of course, no one is claiming anything about “overall” donations, so Schmitt has carefully avoided commenting on the status of the small-donor telephone program. Still, one fired phone bank solicitor who asked not to be identified had this to say, “Last year, my solicitations totaled $164,000, and this year the way they were running for the first four months, they would total $100,000 by the end of 2007,” said . There has been a sharp decline in contributions from RNC phone solicitations, another fired staffer said, reporting that many former donors flatly refuse to give more money to the national party if Mr. Bush and the Senate Republicans insist on supporting what these angry contributors call “amnesty” for illegal aliens. “Everyone donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue,” said the former employee.
You can read the article in its entirety here: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070531-050131-2781r.htm
There is still no word on what kind of impact the bill is having on fundraising by the Arizona GOP, but many believe that the drop will be less than that of the national party because the Arizona GOP was proactive in opposing the bill, mitigating the negative effects of it on the party itself. Still, the longer the debate goes on, particularly with prominent Repubican officials from Arizona leading the charge for passage of the bill, the greater the damage that can be done locally, damage that state legislators fear may have a negative impact on their ability to rally the base for the 2008 elections. “We could be in major trouble,” said one politico here at the Capitol, adding with a smile, “then again, they could nominate Hillary and make everything okay!”
UPDATE: Sources at AZGOP HQ indicate that donations from telephone soliciting are now INCREASING since the State Party took a public position against the bill. Eyes believes that the script the State Party is using has likely been refined to remind donors that Arizona Republicans have already taken a position against the bill’s provisions and that the State Party is defending that position. No word yet on whether the direct mail pitch has been altered, but it stands to reason.
In An Open letter to Sen Kyl one of our contributors stated there might be lingering mistrust even if S.1348 is defeated. We would like to clarify. As far as Sonoran Alliance is concerned the day this bill dies all is forgiven. Quite simply Senator Kyl – We still love you, we miss you, and we want you back on our side.
p.s. I think Laura Ingraham is done with George Bush.
cc: The Honorable Tom Cole, OK 4th
It is really nice of you to be running those radio ads against Gabby Giffords so early (especially after the NRCC helped put her in office.) You might want to make sure that the senate immigration compromise bill does not pass because if it does become law your ads might just be a huge waste of money.
Why? Simple. Your anointed Dennis the Menace opponent for Gabby has already alienated the supply-sider wing of the party. He has little to no credibility with the border security wing of the party and passage of the senate bill would be like painfully ripping the band-aid off the cut. The very slow healing wound would be exposed all over again.
The Arizona 8th Congressional District is a swing seat. Gabby is an astute and sharp campaigner. To unseat an incumbent like her will require the local Republicans establishment to be firing on all cylinders. With the supply-siders already dissed we do not believe that the Republican candidate can afford to let another voting bloc slip away.
Here is your nightmare scenario: The senate immigration bill becomes law with Bush’s signature but Gabby votes against it – saying it did not do enough to protect workers, preserve families, or increase security along the border. Kiss CD-8 goodbye.
(Feel free to ignore us. It worked so well for you last time.)
Arizona 8th covers a new Rasmussen poll on the senate immigration bill.
The Hill has an article on what awaits the senate bill once it gets to the house.
The proponents of the senate immigration bill chide people for being on the sidelines. NO! We are not on the sidelines. We are on the front lines of working to pay our mortgage, pay our taxes (80% of us pay more in social security than in income tax,) raise our children. Again the elites get it wrong. We are on the front line every day.
(I am listening to Laura Ingraham. Sounds like George W. has lost one more former ally.)
There’s a great article in the Republic today on how Arizona courts are continuing to ignore enforcement of Prop. 100, which prohibits bail for illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes (it passed with 78% of the vote, which is quite high for a ballot measure). The courts instead are allowing these accused felons to post bond and then escape out of the country, where they aren’t tracked down, and are free to illegally cross over the border again back into the U.S. (where they may commit more serious crimes, and have, if you’ve been watching The O’Reilly Factor, which recently covered an illegal immigrant convicted of several crimes who killed two teenagers drunk driving).
Have you ever noticed that here in Arizona there is a split between local leaders: you have Governor Napolitano, Attorney General Goddard, City of Phoenix Mayor Gordon & councilmembers, and the courts fighting enforcement of illegal immigration laws (with the able assistance of the local print media), while on the other side, there’s Sheriff Arpaio, the county attorney, and the legislature trying to enforce illegal immigration laws and carry out the will of the people.
So even though Prop. 100 passed with overwhelming voter support last fall, Arizona courts are trying to find a way to make it unenforceable. If I remember correctly, this is the second time they’ve been caught trying to ignore it – the first time a month ago or so the Arizona Supreme Court had to step in and order the lower courts to start enforcing it.
According to the Republic article, even if an illegal immigrant who is arrested for a serious crime says he’s an illegal immigrant, the lower courts say that’s not enough “evidence” to hold him without bail. So far, 160 illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes have been given bond or released without it. This is very dangerous for the community. Keep tuned to the O’Reilly Factor.
Dear Senator and friend,
We have known each other for decades now, and have worked together in campaigns. We have had our disagreements, as friends do, but our friendship and mutual respect have allowed us to overcome those disagreements without damaging the relationship. Now, however, for the first time, your actions have caused such a sense of betrayal that the relationship is at great peril. This is extremely disappointing and troubling. There are few things that would cause irrevocable damage to our friendship, unfortunately, your work in creating this bill and your support of the provisions contained in it, rise to that level.
The discussions that are on-going are very similar to two girls who have been best friends since childhood. They live next door to each other, see each other every day, have “been there” for each other through every challenge each has had, shop together, party together, laugh and cry together.
Then, one of them gets a divorce from their husband because she has slept with the other’s husband and wants to make a life with him. Does the fact that she has been a life-long friend soften or exacerbate the crisis? Does the fact that this was her best friend make the wife even more angry than if it had been a stranger? Does the wife now have a double hurt and anger?
This is where most people are with you, Sen. Kyl. This would be expected from Kennedy, and based on poor performance in this are for years now, it would be expected from Pres. Bush. It also would be expected from John McCain, Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Diane Feinstein, etc., but it was a cruel awakening that the main player in this sad event was you, Sen. Kyl. There is a personal betrayal part of this that people are having a hard time getting their hands around.
This bill is a sellout of the American public and the Arizona citizens. Sen. Kyl, you know the numbers re: the resolutions on the ballot in the last two elections. Sen. Kyl, you knew last year that you had to be against amnesty in order to get re-elected. Sen. Kyl, you knew that your base would be angry if they knew you were participating in secret talks with Kennedy on behalf of the President to create and support an amnesty bill. It was a secret because you knew that most would consider it a betrayal, yet you continued with your ill-advised actions.
Sen. Kyl, you may never fully regain the trust and respect of your own friends and supporters. However, I believe you have a chance to be welcomed back into the conservative family of Arizonans. The only chance you have to do so is to admit that you were wrong, condemn your recent actions as wrong-headed, work for the defeat of the bill beginning now, and be successful in that effort.
Sen. Kyl, the conservative base of this Party, most of whom with children and grandchildren who will be eventually sentenced to a life without the America that we grew up and flourished in if this bill passes, are absolutely willing to do whatever is necessary to overturn this act. Most are life-long loyal Republicans, but they are parents first and believe in God and country over partisanship.
Senator, Ronald Reagan came to believe that the Amnesty legislation of 1986 was the worst thing in his Presidency. It is time for you to step up and admit the same about this bill. That will be very difficult for a proud and strong person like yourself. However, it is times like this that will define your character and determine your legacy that will be yours long after we are both gone from the field of mortal life.
I know this is a long letter, but I hope you will take the time to read it all due to the critical nature of the issues. The window of opportunity to correct the problem is very small and I implore you to make the decision to do so while there is time to stem the damage. God bless. I will be praying that you will do the right thing for Arizona and for America.
According to an AP article the government has not been enforcing the employment verification requirements called for in the 1986 immigration law and will be hard pressed to enact the reforms laid out in the current senate bill.
Many people have commented that the future of the Republican Party is at stake in the debate over S.1348. True but we should point out that the future of this nation is also at stake. Now I think the Republican Party is a fine organization but I care much more about my country than a political party.
When George Bush took office in 2001 the total government revenue was $1.99 trillion. For 2006 the figure was $2.41 trillion (1.) Total debt at the end of 2001 was $5.73 trillion but by the end of 2006 had grown to $8.82 trillion (2.) That is a 46% increase in debt during which revenue increased by 21%. That kind of spending is simply not sustainable.
Republicans controlled both the house and senates from 1994 until 2006 (3), at which time they lost control of both chambers. As mentioned above Bush has been in office since 2001.
Now President Bush and many prominent Republicans are promoting an illegal immigration compromise that the Heritage Foundation (4) estimates will further drive up government spending (and consequently the national debt.) I simply cannot support this and am finding it difficult to be civil.
The President and Republican congress did little to effectively secure the border up to 2006, even after the events of September 11, 2001. They have engaged in a rapid increase in the national debt and missed an opportunity to reform social security while they had control of the government. Social security goes into a deficit in 2017 (5) and S.1348 is expected to make the long-term cost increase (4.) We have not even begun a discussion of the long-term impact that S.1348 would have on the cost of medicare, medicade, and the earned income tax credits. These are entitlement programs that have no cap. The more people who qualify, the more who will receive benefits.
There is a point at which civility becomes moot and the security and economic well being of the U.S. become paramount. I personally believe that we are rapidly approaching that point.
Note: Please correct any of my estimates if needed. I did some quick research on the web and am very open to correction if necessary.
Last week we were treated to a steady stream of people telling us not to attack Senator Kyl. Such voices of civility as Nathan Sproul, Gordon James, Lisa James, Trent Franks, and Judi White said we could criticize the senate immigration bill but that people should not attack the people supporting the bill.
Will these same voices of civility be writing letters to the editor and sending out e-mails telling the president that he may defend the bill but he should not attack critics of the senate bill? (Wasn’t that Bill Clinton’s favorite technique; don’t dispute the facts just attach your critics.)
The most amazing part of Bush’s speech is “Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don’t try to kill this bill before it gets moving,”
Mr. President you have had the past 6 years to enforce existing law and secure the border and you have, by Senator Kyl’s own admission, failed to do that.
You may defend this bill but please do not attack your follow citizens.