“It’s more than time.”

     In her latest editorial Peggy Noonan makes Laura Ingraham look like George W’s best friend.

Senate’s Immigration Bill Hits National GOP Fundraising

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.

Note to the NRCC.

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.)

Poll this.

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.)

“Prop. 100 snubbed by judicial system”

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.

An Open letter to Sen Kyl

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.

Your friend(s)

Still waiting.

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.

Get Real.

     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.

1. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203
2. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Congress
4. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/sr14.cfm
5. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR05/II_project.html#wp105057

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.

You had your chance.

     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.

Selective civility.

Dear Friends,
There have been many voices heard over the last week, in Arizona, and the time has come to set the record straight.
Senator Jon Kyl was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994 after a distinguished career in the U.S. House of Representatives beginning in 1987.  He has served Arizona well, by introducing legislation to make permanent President Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, by helping to pass a bill guaranteeing the rights of crime victims and serving as the driving force behind the Arizona Water Settlements Act.  He was instrumental in the confirmation of John Roberts and Sam Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.  He serves on the Senate Republican Leadership Committee and is the Chair of the Republican Policy Committee.
In addition to the current border security and immigration debate, there are several extremely important policy issues that will be considered by the Senate over the next several years.  These include our national security, a possible appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, many federal judgeships, Social Security, and health care.  Having a Senator with the integrity and character of Jon Kyl in a leadership role will allow Republican principles to be included in the formation of national policy.
Our continued support of Senator Kyl is extremely important because of the leadership role he plays in the United States Senate.  To ensure passage of legislation in the Senate, 60 votes are required.  In order to block bad legislation from becoming law, 40 votes are necessary.  Senator Kyl is providing the leadership necessary to keep 40 or more Republicans together on important issues to prevent the Democratic majority from enacting bad law. 
We are Republicans. We discuss and sometimes we disagree. That does not mean we have to be disagreeable.  We don’t always walk hand-in-hand down every road.  But, we should head in the same direction.  We respect civility and we will continue to work together to solve issues. 
Thank you.
Judi White
Pima County Republican Party

(Judi, Nice job defending Senator Kyl. Sorry that we missed your e-mail defending the good name of Randy Graf while Steve Huffman was trashing him and distorting his record.)

East Tucson Alert!

     Representative Giffords will be discussing border issues and immigration reform Tuesday evening at the Academy Village, 13701 E. Old Spanish Trail from 7:00 to 8:30 pm. You may want to confirm the details with her Tucson office at 881-3588 if you are planning on attending as the information came to us second hand.

     If you want to brush up on the details of the current senate immigration bill please visit The Heritage Foundation for an analysis of the plan.

Update: Jed Babbin has some great advice on what to do about the Senate Immigration Bill while congress is in recess.

Update 2: McCain slips to number 3.

Forgotten Heroes

Forgotten in the sense that liberals (media, Hollywood, Democrats) downplay American heroism and prefer to treat our warriors as victims.  OpinionJournal.com has a moving editorial.  The stories of our past and present heroes are amazing stories. Read it all, and read it to your children.

Once we knew who and what to honor on Memorial Day: those who had given all their tomorrows, as was said of the men who stormed the beaches of Normandy, for our todays. But in a world saturated with selfhood, where every death is by definition a death in vain, the notion of sacrifice today provokes puzzlement more often than admiration. We support the troops, of course, but we also believe that war, being hell, can easily touch them with an evil no cause for engagement can wash away. And in any case we are more comfortable supporting them as victims than as warriors.

Former football star Pat Tillman and Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham were killed on the same day: April 22, 2004. But as details of his death fitfully emerged from Afghanistan, Tillman has become a metaphor for the current conflict–a victim of fratricide, disillusionment, coverup and possibly conspiracy. By comparison, Dunham, who saved several of his comrades in Iraq by falling on an insurgent’s grenade, is the unknown soldier. The New York Times, which featured Abu Ghraib on its front page for 32 consecutive days, put the story of Dunham’s Medal of Honor on the third page of section B.


We impoverish ourselves by shunting these heroes and their experiences to the back pages of our national consciousness. Their stories are not just boys’ adventure tales writ large. They are a kind of moral instruction. They remind of something we’ve heard many times before but is worth repeating on a wartime Memorial Day when we’re uncertain about what we celebrate. We’re the land of the free for one reason only: We’re also the home of the brave.

(H/T Powerline blog)

From someone who has been there.

For an excellent Memorial Day tribute we refer you to Arizona 8th.

Immigrationista’s devouring their own

crazy_womanSomeone needs to get this woman some medication.  Now Michelle Dallacroce of Mother’s Against Illegal Aliens is going after Republican Party chairman Randy Pullen.  First she called US Sen. Jon Kyl a “liar”, then she tore up her Republican voter ID card on national television, now she calls Pullen “duplicitous.”  Pullen’s crime? He said Sen. Kyl was a “statesman”. 

I have yet to hear anger over the Arizona Democrats stand on the immigration bill.  Where is Janet “it’s a federal problem there is nothing I can do about it” Napolitano on this issue?  How about the chairman of the Democrat Party?  Or is this just an issue to bash the Republican Party and ruin any chances to take back the House and Senate in 2008?

I know what some of you are thinking: a lot of Republicans are behind this bill and they deserve to lose for ignoring their base.  Consider this, there was nothing but talk on “amnesty” when the Republicans controlled the House and Senate.  Now, less than six months after taking over Congress, the Democrats want to force a vote on it. 

Which political party controls Congress does matter. 

From Dallacroce:

Not only is Randy Pullen, the State Chairman for the Arizona Republican Party, duplicitous in his support of Senator Jon Kyl, he is ABSOLUTELY DUPLICITOUS.   Here is a “Party Leader” who has made every attempt to hide his political agenda i.e. his loyal support for Kyl by publicly stating that he was opposed to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill only last week.   Now within a matter of a few days the “Party” Chairman made a statement to the Associated Press that Senator Jon Kyl was indeed a “statesman”…

“ABSOLUTELY DUPLICITOUS”?  Is that kind of like being Dean Wormer’s declaration in Animal House that the Delta’s are on “double secret probation?” 


Myth vs. Reality.

“I’ll make it a top priority to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and stop illegal immigration.” – Harry Mitchell

A reader named Marsha over at Espresso Pundit insinuated that Hayworth and Graf lost their elections because they supported securing the border

It is true that J.D. ran as a tough on the border candidate. But did Mitchell run as an open borders amnesty candidate? No. The ads below show that Mitchell ran a tough and smart campaign that tagged J.D. as corrupt and partisan. So J.D. lost with border security a big part of his campaign. Mitchell won with a campaign about corruption and personality, not on open borders and amnesty.

Here is Harry’s ad hitting J.D. on the corruption charge. Nothing about the border.

YouTube Preview Image

Here is another ad that says nothing about the border.

YouTube Preview Image

Here is an ad for Mitchell that hits J.D. for reportedly cutting school funding.

YouTube Preview Image

“cynical and inept”

     Two more well reasoned conservatives have commented on the senate immigration compromise.

     Peggy Noonan addressed the false argument that the only alternative is mass deportation.

Here is the truth: America has never deported millions of people, and America will never deport millions of people. It’s not what we do. It’s not who we are. It’s not who we want to be.

     Mark Steyn discusses what the actually effect of the bill will be (not the fantasy being peddled by its supporters.)

The immigration bill is all reward and no obligations. The only clause that matters is the first one: the mandatory open-ended probationary legal status the bill will confer the moment it’s passed. All the rest — the enforcement provisions on border agents and security fences that will supposedly “trigger” Z-visas and then green cards — is nonsense, most of which will never happen.