In a detailed analysis of the 2012 election, William A. Galston, a fellow with the liberal Brookings Institution, makes a number of fascinating observations that Republicans would do well to consider before embracing amnesty, abortion, gay marriage and Beyonce.
In my analysis of his analysis, the single most important factor in the election was simply that Obama was an incumbent. As Galston notes, beating an incumbent president is a feat that has happened only five times since the turn of the last century. Republicans have done it only once.
On closer examination, in all these cases the incumbent president faced a primary challenge. In three of the five, the incumbent also had a third-party challenger in the general election.
– In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt ran against incumbent William Howard Taft and, failing to win the Republican nomination, ran on a third-party “Bull Moose” ticket against him.
– In 1932, President Herbert Hoover faced a number of primary opponents, including Calvin Coolidge and John Blaine (and it was also a few years into the Great Depression).
– In 1976, Ronald Reagan nearly beat a never-elected incumbent, Gerald Ford, in the primary, losing narrowly on the convention floor, 1,070 to 1,187. (And Ford still almost pulled it out!)
– In 1980, Teddy Kennedy ran a primary campaign against President Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, and John Anderson ran as a liberal third-party candidate in the general election.
– In 1992, Pat Buchanan ran against incumbent George H.W. Bush, winning an astounding 37 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, and then Ross Perot ran a shockingly popular third-party campaign, winning 19 percent of the general election vote — mostly, polls showed, from Bush.
In 1980, the one time Republicans beat an incumbent, not only was the economy in shambles, not only had Iranian savages been holding 52 American hostages for more than a year, but Carter was badly battered by these extra opponents. (And that’s to say nothing of an amphibious rabbit assault!)
Running as the “true liberal,” Kennedy won 11 of 24 primaries against Carter, including the not-insignificant states of New York, Pennsylvania, California and New Jersey. (He impressed voters during the campaign by not drowning any more campaign aides.)
Kennedy battled Carter right up to the national convention in August, even seeking a rule change in an attempt to snatch the nomination from Carter.
A month after the convention, Kennedy’s supporters were still so bitter, one-third of them said they’d prefer Reagan to Carter. Another third said they were either undecided or supporting the liberal third-party candidate, John Anderson. (The rest had unaccountably drowned after being driven off a bridge.)
Independent candidate Anderson directed all his campaign fire at Carter, vowing to stay in the race even if it meant a Reagan victory. On Election Day, if Anderson’s votes had gone to Carter, Reagan would have squeaked into office with less than a 2-million-vote margin and Jimmy Carter would still be whining about it.
By contrast, Obama faced zero opposition from his party, the media, the education establishment or Hollywood, all of which were madly in love with him.
And yet, Obama may be the only president ever to win re-election with fewer votes than his initial election, down nearly 4 million votes compared to 2008.
Galston identifies the game-changing elections in the past century, leading to a period of one-party dominance, as 1900, 1936 and 1984. In each of these elections, the turnout rose and the winner received both a higher vote total and a higher share of the popular vote compared to his prior election.
As Galston says, “None of these things happened in 2012.” Turnout was down by 3.5 percentage points, Obama received 3.9 million fewer votes than in 2008, and even his percentage of the vote declined by about 2 points.
In 2008, a majority of voters said they thought the government should do more, not less. In 2012, a majority thought government was doing too much.
After Republican Gerald Ford — a technical incumbent -– lost his re-election in 1976, Republicans didn’t engineer a comeback by adopting the idiotic policies of the Democrats. They certainly shouldn’t after the 2012 election.
Last year, Republicans had to run against an incumbent with a unified party and a unified media, 100 percent behind him, and they had to do it after waging their own bitter, endless primary fight, providing a wealth of sound bites for Obama TV ads.
Still, Obama did worse than nearly any other incumbent who has won re-election. Indeed, had the election been held a week earlier, Obama probably would have lost.
Stop running scared, Republicans. It makes you look like Democrats.
I think that we all can agree that this is very true. "...Republicans had to run against an incumbent with a unified party and a uified media, 100 percent behind him, and they had to do it after wagin their own bitter, endless primary fight, providing a wealth of sound bites for Obama TV ads." This has to be the best statement I have read and leads to the next election in 2016. Quantity does not equate with quality in this particular case and in very few is it best. We need to have less in the number of candidates and what we have need to be very qualified and the best that we have to offer. There is no doubt that the bitter and contentious bickering among the candidates of the Republican Party either confused people or did a great deal to make them discouraged and sick to death of all of them and this, I believe, explains a lot of why so many didn't bother to vote. It was not as much that they didn't care for Romney and Ryan, as it iwas that they were so disgusted with the the conduct of the Republican Party. My gosh, clear up to the lection we had Republicans that were still bickering among themselves. In the past we would see that those that ran would all, once they dropped out and the nominee was put forth to the party at the Convention, that they would join together and support the candidate and do all they could to help bring their supporters to that person's campaign. I saw very little of this in 2012. It was especially noticable with Ron Paul. I was receiving emails for Michelle Bachmann's campaign clear up to the election and not one came out with support for Mitt Romney.
The signal coming out of the Party was very clear, no unity behind their candidate. I appreciate Santorum, Pawlenty, and Gingrich as they came out very supportive. However, where was Rick Perry? What about Herman Cain?
Even when she lost to Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton came out with full support for Barack Obama.
This is what I believe we need to learn from the Democrats, more than anything we need to learn to put aside the differences and become united behind the person with the Party's nomination. Who wants to elect a person when their own party can't put aside differences and see the value in electing the person?
So, it is interesting to note that once again, the real answer seens to be that we did it to ourselves. Very interesing and Tara Jane asked this be posted. Great article.
Yes, Linda, but even with "all that" Obama did NOT win by a landslide. Just think about it....voter turn out was low for the republicans and for the democrats. This is the hard question we need to ask ourselves as republicans. WHY was voter turn out low when nearly 50% of Americans didn't vote for Obama the first time around?
Why didn't the republicans get out and support Mitt Romney? Romney would've easily won the election if only the republican voter turn out wasn't so low.
And in this case, Linda, yes, we did it to ourselves.
The problem as I see it is that we need candidates that are easy to vote for. In most of the circles in which my ear was inserted, the battle cry of the 2012 election was 'anyone but Obama'. While I and appreciate the significance of the danger of having Barry in the Oval Office, it is at minimum difficult and more likely impossible to win based on a opposition to the alternative rather than presenting a positive justification for the candidate being presented. There is an issue of credibility that isn't helped when the best thing offered is essentially the claim of being less bad than the alternative.
Tara Jane posted a nice list of characteristics which I believe she correctly attributed to actual moderates (not to be confused with left-leaning candidates presented to us as moderates). The list is also quite agreeable so far as most conservatives are concerned. The problem is that any candidate who subscribes to this list is accused of being a right-wing extremist and the GOP establishment for some strange reason accepts this as truth. If the GOP cannot field candidates that stand for smaller government, smaller tax bills, smaller government intrusion on our lives and liberty, and some basic decency, I fail to see the incentive to vote for them as opposed to Democrats. My choice of driving over the cliff at 50 mph as opposed to driving over the cliff at 70 mph just doesn't seem like a compelling alternative.
The other problem is cultural. For decades, our schools have taught children what to think rather than teaching them how to apply critical thinking. They have been taught that even the most fundamental elements of decency are unacceptable impositions of religion, and they value frivolous contrived 'rights' more highly than the foundational rights that are critical to the existence of a free republic. While I believe that the federal government has no business doing anything not specifically authorized in the Constitution, I have to question those who put establishment of a right to buggery ahead of such things as reinforcing the tattered remains of the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments which receive the majority of the attack of federal overreach, and containing and shrinking the government which now has the distinction of the majority of its actions and spending being based on contrived extraconstitutional authority.
I don't know how at this point to correct the situation. The people could get smart and rediscover constitutional government which would bolster personal liberty in most significant regards and also necessarily trim the budget such that we would not have a national debt in a decade. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. Too many people vote for personal gain and every extraconstitutional spending program is the payment for votes that are being shamelessly bought, be it through an 'Obama phone' or farm subsidies that are designed to benefit farmers surnamed 'corporation' at the expense of the family farm which cannot compete, even with picking up some federal crumbs, with the federal largesse given their less efficient competitors. The more likely alternative is a cataclysmic event with the predictable consequences following it.
Are we sure we can't round up some real candidates?
David: Very well said and deserving of a green star! Unfortunately I've reached the conclusion that we will need that cataclysmic event before the dependent class and some in the GOP get the message that we have serious problems and those aren't being addressed. And one of those serious problems is a POTUS who has delusions of tyranny. Does anyone think this move to disarm the population, create chaos with serial "initiatives" like an unneeded immigration reform"/"gay marriage"/women in combat/etc, moves to beef up arms/ammo/armored vehicles for Homeland Insecurity and other agencies, additional support to radical islam at home and abroad, and the administration's continued illegal actions in areas like appointments and overriding existing law is accidental? Then there is the totally lousy appointments being made in all areas as we see with Hagel/Kerry/Brennan/Lew that will further radicalize or destroy the agencies they will lead. Sure looks like that cataclysmic event is coming fast and is being orchestrated by Dear Leader, his groupies in the press, the Demagogues, and the political appointees in the agencies run by the administration. The only hope is that they will do the two things the Left seems to always do: overreach and do something that has the opposite result than they plan.
Diane, I agree, it was no landslide by any means and did not mean to imply that nor did the article as I read it. I think it is more about how we relabored the primary election process to the point of discouraging a lot of people; look what would have happened if we had retained those Repubicans that didn't vote and those that voted for Ron Paul; I think we would have won the election. I also think that those like Perry that did not make the nomination could have done more to support Romney. But do agree with you, Obama certainly can't boast of this election as it points out his numbers were way down from 2008.
Interesting comments David and I guess I would have to ask is where do you feel Romney fell short of your expectations? Your comment: "If the GOP cannot field candidates that stand for smaller government, smaller tax bills, smaller government intrusion on our lives and liberty, and some basic decency, I fail to see the incentive to vote for them as opposed to Democrats."
I don't know how many speeches I listened to over the course of the 2 months from the RNC to election day that I heard Romney give; I listened to the debates and in every case I heard him campaign on the platform of smaller government, reducing taxation, smaller government intrusion on our lives and liberty, and basic decency. He is probably one of the most decent candidates we have had since Ronald Reagan. So, based on your own criteria, he was the ideal candidate. I would agree with that 100% and still do. It never was a case of anyone to get Obama out, at least not for me. I chose the man based on his merits and he just happened to be the best choice for what I felt was necessary. Of course we all wanted Obama out of office and so that made it more imperative to support Romney/Ryan and to get out there and work in his campaign to help do this. I did not see a single person of his campaign workers there to simply get Obama out ouf office; that was not the primary goal, the goal was to get Romney elected.
Normally I do not think there would have been the emphasis on getting Obama out no matter what if he had been a more normal president whose policies you did not agree; this was an exceptional case. Therefore, on a political blog people concentrated more on that concept, no matter what get him out and that this theme overshadowed the fact that we were all looking at the candidates as well and determining who we supported. Thus, one aspect took predominance when it was not necessarily the actual case.
This article does point to where there appears to be the most predominant mistake and I have to agree. The Republicans spun their heels way too long trying to determine which of way too many candidates would be the best choice and not enough time was then allowed to focus on the strongest candidate to win the election; not to simply defeat Obama, but to win the election and lead this Country out of our crisis and back onto strong ground once more. By the time we got there people were burned out and no longer listening; I should say, around 3,000,000 people had quit listening and were burned out thus they simply did not vote. We still had a significant percentage of Republicans and I am sure even some Democrats that supported Romney, 47%. This is right Diane, it was no runnaway for Obama in the least and not the "landslide" or "overwhelming vote of confidence" that the Democrats feel they had, not in the least.
“A liberal, a conservative, and a moderate walk into a bar. The bartender says, "Hi, Mitt."
I've never questioned that he was a good man or questioned his love of this country, but
go back before those two months before election day & look at Mitt Romney's political past. His pov has changed.
As with McCain, I voted for the him in large part because he was a Republican & not Obama, not because I thought he was the best man to hold the office.
Quite frankly, I held my nose when I went in to vote for John McCain. I voted the republican party.
I liked Mitt Romney from day one. I like the essence of him as a true patriot, a good husband, father and a man who believes in God. I also admire his business success. If the republicans had gone out and voted Mitt would have won. I honestly believe that. He didn't lose my much. I blame the republican voters for Obama's re-election win.
Great comments everyone. For me, I cannot help but feel like we, as a party, are wasting very valuable time between now and 2014. If a viable candidate doesn't "appear" before us soon we will lose in 2016. The media has begun their "grooming" of Hillary and by the time they get finished she'll have a halo over her head, a face lift, will lose 50 lbs and look like a million dollars gift wrapped for the democratic party to serve up to the republicans.
I keep thinking about Rubio. I keep thinking about his positives and there are many. He is a Gen-Xer with moderate revisions to the core of the republican party in terms of immigration and healthcare. We'll have to watch him and really listen to what he says and how he says it.
I also have a strong feeling for Jeb Bush. Why? Because his brother, George W. Bush, looks like a saint after 5 years of Obama. By the end of Obama's second term, GWB, will have new status which can transfer to Jeb. No matter what anyone says about the Bush family, they are true patriots and we cannot forget that GWB did many things right during his two terms as president. Iraq was unfortunate on one hand but on the other hand he got rid of Iraq'a dictator who was raping, gassing, mutilating and slaughtering his own people simply because they didn't agree with him. Our country did bring some semblance of democracy to Iraq....people were voting, women were voting, and we gave them a taste of how it could be once out from under a dictatorship. Unfortunately, Obama has reversed all the accomplishments by pulling our troops out too early and they again have serious issues with their enemies.
I often think about Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, what a fine, intelligent man he is and what a great president he could be if elected. Many years ago, his wife walked out on him leaving him with two or three children. They have since reconciled and Mitch knew that if he ran for president in 2012 the biased left wing media would crucify his wife and the effect it would have on his now grown children would've been a bridge too far for them. I've read all of Mitch Daniels books and he would be a great leader. Look what he has done for the state of Indiana. He is an extraordinary man. The biased left wing media crucified Sarah Palin so much so with the excessive lawsuits that she had to step down as Governor. So, this is what we are facing as republicans....a very strong biased left wing media and it appears that we can't stop them. I was raised to believe that there is a solution to every problem and sometimes we have to be patient for the answer in order to move forward but I am hard pressed to find a solution for the media bias. How do we stop it? What can we do? We have excellent governors who have done a remarkable job in running their states by cutting spending, adding private sector jobs and have a balanced budget with a real surplus...unlike Bill Clinton who took money out of social security leaving IOU's in its place then turning to the cameras thumping his chest that he was "the man" for having a surplus at the end of eight years. The left wing media took it to the bank....lies and all.
So, all of this to say is that we should be looking at the many very successful republican governors. We should draw from our strengths and if we could somehow get two highly successful governors to run as President and Vice President perhaps we could change the atmosphere at a time when Americans are sick and tired of Obama's lies and incompetence after eight long years. Obama is Jimmy Carter redux.....and my guess is that we'll see a repeat performance at the end of Obama's eight years that will make Jimmy Carter look like a good president....which of course he wasn't.
Well, I will have to admit that I don't always agree with Ann Coulter's articles and her opinions but on this issue I really think she is spot on.
I want to congratulate all the wonderfully intelligent people of Political Derby. You are all so intelligent with wonderful insights. Now, if we could just get someone to sponsor us we could travel this country talking to Republicans, get their ideas and their wants for 2016. Perhaps that is what the Republicans need - a "real" grassfire organization of "real" people. Not politicans, not super Pacs, just plain old Jack and Janes. In other words - from the heart.
Yes, Diane, we do have some very successful Republican governors - Scott Walker also comes to mind. I've been a huge fan of his since his battles in Wisconsin. Of course, I would love to see Jeb Bush run, but, for some reason I think he is dedicated to education in Florida. And, he was one h*** of a Governor.
I'm still looking for that successful, Republican businessman from the mid-west. Someone not in politics - someone from out of nowhere. Guess they don't make them anymore. At least not to run for President.
I was going to offer a lengthy explanation of my misgivings regarding Romney, but Sandy summed it up quite nicely. Also significant is the number of instant transformations he has undergone as opposed to someone like Reagan who started out liberal as a Swede, but found his way in a manner that suggested personal growth rather than political expedience. I want a candidate who truly believes in the aforementioned values, not one who is saying what I want to hear this week (but who know what next week, or a week after he wins an election).
Well, David, what we can never take away from Mitt Romney is that he is an astute businessman and was a good Governor of Massachusetts. Is he perfect? No one is. For any man or woman to even consider running for a high office in our country KNOWING how the biased left wing media will destroy them and their families is a mystery. The fact that Mitt stood tall and went out and campaigned endlessly for the republican party renders him a bold gold star from where I sit.
How can we sit back in judgement of this man who tried his best to win this election for the republican party? It placed his entire family under a microscope and let us not forget how important Ann Romney's role in this was....she was stellar.
For us, as republicans, to do a public hanging of Mitt Romney who stepped up to run for president when there was NO ONE else near qualified to do so is very sad in my opinion.
We should be thankful that he did it for his party.
I would have to add in Romney's defense that, unlike a certain Kenyan, he did not enter politics with the apparent goal of destroying the country.
On that remark David, I definitely agree with you. You know I was doing a bit of research on all the candidates that were on the original slate. And, although I had forgotten, there was a gentleman running for president - the former Governor of Utah. Who was Obama's Ambassador to China. Absolutely stellar record as one of the most extremely conservative Republican Governors, Anti-Abortion, loved by the NRA, well respected, etc. Very intelligent man -- was labeled by the Conservatives as a RINO. His name is Jon Huntsman. Remember that name. If you really dig back there and check his voting record, etc. it sorta makes me wonder why the Republican conservatives were so fast in kicking him to the curb. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that!
And, although we differ on some things I do think that we will agree that the GOP cannot survive as a party representing only one small part of its center right ideology.
Tara Jane, I have met both Jon Sr. and Jr. and they are very real people; every bit as real as Romney. I have the utmost respect for Jon Huntsman Jr. and still think he should give it a try again. He needs to get more exposure, I suspect. He has an excellent record as governor of Utah, was a very fine Ambassador and you are right, we need to keep our eyes on him as a potential. He certainly was no RINO in Utah.
The best I can offer about Huntsman is guilt by association with Obama. It would be a very difficult position for anyone. He could have turned down the appointment and likely still would have suffered from the implied endorsement from Obama. He could have done exactly what he did which is to accept and put the best person who had any chance of being appointed in the job and mitigating the ill effects of an inept administration with the fallout as it was. Perhaps Obama (or one of his handlers) was bright enough to understand that as soon as they announced that he was under consideration it would have trashed his aspirations to aim higher within the GOP and torpedoed the man who likely could have been the strongest potential opponent in 2012.
It is not unusual for a Republican or a Democrat to serve an ambassadorship or other Cabinet appointment for the president of the other party than their own. There are a number of very logical reasons for Jon Huntsman Jr.'s appointment; the fact that he and his father do a great deal of buisnes with China and are familiar with the Country, Jon Huntsman Jr. did his 2 year missionary work in Taiwan which means he knows the language, knows the people and in this particular case, with all the activity between Taiwan and China regarding Taiwan and their relationship, he would have been a logical choice.
David, he is extremely outspokane regarding Obama and his policies and that they are not right, that he is destroying business, etc. I see no "guilt by association" there at all. It should not be difficult at all; he was needed in that position and cared about the U.S. and our emerging position with China enough to serve his Country as Ambassador regardless of who was president; that is admirable. Remember, the entire Senate, Republican and Democrat, ratified his appointment. Orin Hatch, without a doubt a Republican and conservative gentleman, endorsed this appointment, as did all the Republican's in the Senate so there should not be the least bit of fallout; he was not serving Obama and his Administration, he was serving the U.S. government as a whole as their Ambassador to China. He was not making policy for our governrment nor serving on any of Obama's committees that were making the failed decisions,why would this be negative for Huntsman?
In cases like this I have a lot of trouble with this idea that it is our side or their side and never the two shall work together; as a Nation we are dead the day it becomes such as this. No wonder nothing is being accomplished in Congress; with no compromise there is nothing productive coming form our government. Do not confuse this statement with compromise of conservative principal as that is not the case at all, but there certainly is room for compromise when it comes to who we send to be the Ambassador to foreign Countries.
Linda - you are correct about Huntsman. I think I understand what David was saying. I think I understand! Do you really think that Huntsman was overlooked by the conservatives because he was Ambassador to China under Obama. If that's the case than someone on the conservative side was really nuts. Huntsman served under three other Presidents in several capacities. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George Bush.
But I do agree with David on one point -- there was an article written at one time about how Obama feared that Huntsman would run and offered him the Ambassadorship to get him out of the way. Seemed it worked. And, of course, the media aided Obama in his stealth!
So David, now that Huntsman is no longer associated with the "Immaculated" one -- would the conservatives actually vet this very successful, conservative businessman, former lauded Governor from the West? I certainly think they might consider him for 2016. Look it up on the internet and check out his ratings while he WAS Governor and his rating when he left. They sure were a lot higher than Obama's ratings.
I stand alone, I guess on this one. Never was all that fond of Huntsman. For one, he's in favor of illegal immigrants gaining amnesty and this an extremely important issue affecting our economy.
Sandy, let's then leave Huntsman out of the discussion on amnesty and look at that issue. First, how, without spending billions of dollars with absolutely no guarantee that you will accomplish the desired goal, how will we round them all up and deport them? On the pro, it will give us the means to create a lot of jobs but they still will not be successful and the cost will be so extreme to even try. If, on the other hand, we grant them amnesty we at least will have them registering and then we will shut down the American business owners that have contributed to and probably created a good part of the problem by making them see that the taxes are paid by deducting them from the wages and sending them to the government. By collecting the taxes from these people, there will then be the money to defray the expenses of their living here.
One thing that I think we need to look at closely is that the majority of the illegal workers here are actually working; the problem is that the employers (AMERICAN CITIZENS) are not paying them in a manner where they are paying taxes, into Medicare, etc. But these people are working as their goal is to make money to take back to Mexico as it will buy them so much more to have American money and they can also help their family members still there. Even the teenagers are working; the only real drain is the children but since the parents are working, they are also spending in the U.S. They buy food, pay for a place to live even if it is maybe 5 or so families together sharing the expenses, they are still spending money. The real issue centers as much or possibly more on the employers that are using them for cheap help, and basically cheating our government in doing this.
I have seen this over and over in Central Washington were I was definitely a minority. I worked with a number of them, too. Our Company did it legally; they had to produce green cards, they had to be valid green cards or they were not hired, when the green cards expired they were terminated until such time as they returned with valid green cards, income tax, social security, medicare, worker's comp, etc. were all deducted from their wages and paid to the respective governments (State and Federal). But, for every employer like us that did it legally, there were at least 20 orchards, lawn services, tree trimming services, fly-by-night construction companies, etc., all owned by Americans, that were paying under the table as they could hire them based on federal and not state minimum wage (Washington State has one of the highest minimum wage levels of anywhere in the U.S.). I saw a case where an inspector came in to our plant and 2 of the 6 Hispanics working there had expired green cards; our PR man had not caught them as yet and they had expired by just a few days in both cases. He took them off the floor to the PR manager, they were terminated and escorted off the property immediately and told they had to return to Mexico, go through the process to get their cards updated and then they could come back. They were even told they could get their jobs back. One of the two did return to Mexico and 6 months later she was back to work. The other never left the area, was still there 2 years later when I left that area, and working for a lawn service being paid under the table. People in the area had contacted the immigration office but nothing was done as they didn't have the manpower to investigate and when they did send someone to check, he was never there; we know that he and his uncle kept a close eye out and we even know how he disappeared but there was nothing we could do.
This brings me back to the first point, how do people propose we "round them up and send them back" when they are not willing to do so? And what is the expense going to be to even try?
I, like you, would like nothing better but don't see a way to accomplish that realistically. Therefore, grant them work visas and let them stay for a certain period of time as that way you know where they are and how to reach them; let the employers then be forced to pay them under proper payroll guidelines so they are paying taxes, etc. At least we are putting money into the economy and not seeing it all go out the door; and let's put blame where it needs to be, employers that hire them. Trust me, 90% of them would not bother to come here if they could not get work. They are not, contrary to public opinion of some, lazy people, at least not the Mexicans I have encountered on the West Coast or even around here.
I have a problem giving amnesty to people who have broken our laws. Those who pursue getting a green card are doing things legally. Rounding them up is a ludicrous idea. The number of people entering the country illegally has decreased lately because of the poor economy which is why, as you say, most of them are here. Is giving amnesty fair to the ones who got here legally? Giving amnesty only draws more in. Didn't work for Reagan and it won't work now.
To repeat myself from a previous post:
I would hazard a guess that many Hispanic citizens who came here legally or were born here are not fond of the idea of amnesty although groups like La Raza, MECha and Aztlan are thrilled. [They want a large area of the SW & West coast to go back to Mexico. They believe there is strength in numbers]
-beef up border security which I am not at all confident will really be done.
-Improve the speed & ability of people to come here legally.[which Diane disagreed with]
-Punish businesses who hire illegals.
-Put an end to sanctuary cities.
-Encourage them to self-deport by taking away all the freebies except for example in life & death situations in the ER.
-To Pres. Obama: Law enforcement's hands need to be untied. Illegals, as long as they have committed no crime, cannot be deported, so sayeth you. Stop suing them & allow states likeArizonato enforce the laws since the Federal Gov't won't.
-The children brought here illegally by their parents? I don't have a definite answer on that. I have mixed feelings. I sympathize with them, but I also don't agree with Obama's Dream Act Lite, either.