Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Iraq, corruption, not immigration, thrash GOP

A few things to keep in mind when the WSJ and its open border cohorts begin excoriating the GOP for losing the midterm elections due to its immigration stance that may have cost the party 4% of the Hispanic vote (somewhere between .25% and .32% of the total vote):

- Democrats won with a margin of around 7.5%, at 52.5%-45%. It wasn't a razor thin nailbiter, it was a blowout.

- Voters attaching lots of importance to the immigration issue went for the GOP. Those considering illegal immigration either "extremely important" or "very important" (62% of all voters) favored Republicans 53.4% to 46.6%. Chafee and DeWine, two of the Republicans' most hostile opponents of US sovereignty, went down in flames. Bilbray, the California Congressman the WSJ pummeled and John McCain abandoned as he battled for the Republican nod and then against Democrat Francine Busby in the special election to replace the disgraced Duke Cunningham, won handily this time around, 53.3%-43.4%.

- Voters attaching lots of importance to Iraq went for the Democrats. Those considering the Iraq war either "extremely important" or "very important" (67% of all voters) favored the Dems 53.3% to 46.7%.

- Ethical lapses were an act of self-immolation for the GOP. Voters considering ethical issues and those involving corruption "extremely important" or "very important" (74% of the electorate) favored the Dems by 55.4% to 45.6%.

- Most revealing of all, voters disapproving of the war in Iraq overwhelmingly threw in with the Democrats. Those who say they "somewhat disapprove" or "strongly disapprove" of the war (55% of all voters) favor the Dems by a staggering 79.7%-20.3%.

Most of the open borders crowd vociferously supported the Iraq debacle, the WSJ not at all an exception. It was this incredible folly, based upon quixotic liberal notions about humanity so out of sync with reality that destroyed the Republican majority. Yet just as these bellicose leftists ignored the insurmountable obstacles to liberal democracy in Iraq (half the population married to a second cousin or closer, tribalism, Islam, an average IQ of around 87, a purchasing power parity of a couple thousand dollars, etc), they also ignore it stateside.

Nevermind that the open borders they desire come with an enormous price tag (the CBO, the gold standard in ascertaining the costs of governmental programs, estimated that the Senate bill would've cost the US upwards of $200 billion), will force the nation's average IQ downward, accentuate the wealth gap, make housing less affordable, decrease the percentage of Americans pursuing higher education, increase cultural tensions via balkanization, increase welfare payments and other wealth transfers, increase anti-Semitism in the US, inhibit technological innovation, increase criminal activity and further bloat our already over-crowded prisons, bring back atavistic diseases the developed world thought it had banished forever decades ago, ad infinitum.

Hell, looking at that litany, an almost identical list of woes can be applied to Iraq post-invasion as corrupt government officials take billions through graft, Shia and Sunni alike hanker for death to America and Israel, a civil war piles up hundreds and hundreds of bodies a week, and the professional classes head for places like Lebanon and Jordan. They ruined it there, they'll ruin it here.

And they'll have the gall to blame it on Tom Tancredo (who won his reelection bid by a wide margin of 59%-40%). In the meantime, with Pelosi as speaker and the once-tough but now open-bordered Harry Reid as probably majority leader, look forward to hearing fawning media blather about compromise and moderation, as the Congressional compromise accompanies the immigration 'compromise' of fixing the broken immigration system (and other such platitudes) via a 'comprehensive solution' and on and on.



savage said...

I wonder will such sources also say the multicult right should have clamored for a minimum wage hike? Republicans took 38% of the union vote. This time they took 30%. There were two times the union voters as Hispanic voters. Will the WSJ blame itself for opposing a minimum wage increase, which is so politically popular (while open borders is not)?

crush41 said...


No, of course not.

Cynically, I see both the WSJ's advocation of open borders and your jocular suggestion showing how in a two-party system, the middle is generally the place garner political victories. So the Republican Party tries to slide as far to the left as it can to pick up the 'moderates' while taking for granted those on its right (although self-described 'conservatives' dropped from 34% to 32% of the electorate this time around).

So what can you do? Be as extreme as possible, pulling the middle in your direction!

JSBolton said...

I'm wondering that the WSJ could find only two republican candidates who they named as hardline on illegals, who lost.
Since over 30 republican seats were lost, does that mean that ten times as many as the WSJ mentioned, were in line with the Bush approach on immigration, and lost as well?
On top of that the republican national leadership appears to have recruited congressional leaders for open-borders type positions, from those with the least likelihood of being unseated.
It's almost as if they believed that a soft line on illegals can unseat a republican candidate all by itself.
Hopefully NumbersUSA or someone who keeps score on these points will publish this information, on what the different positions on illegals, amnesties and so on, did relative to republican candidates who lost in national elections this time.

JSBolton said...

That is, relative to incumbents, is what I mean.

crush41 said...


Even the articulate JD Hayworth was no Tom Tancredo with regards to immigration. 'Moderate' Republicans were the big losers on Tuesday.