Posted by
Steve Maloney on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:07:21 AM
An old political saying, "As goes Maine, so goes Vermont." (Alf Landon carried the two states in 1936)
Mitt's saying is: "As goes Utah, so goes Idaho."
If Diogenes were still around engaged in his long search, he'd quickly pass by Mitt Romney.
Segregationist "Dr." Bob Jones endorsed Mitt. Who's next? David Duke?
Question: Why aren't we hearing more about what a major floperoo "Mitt's" mega-bucks sign-up campaign was on Townhall?
Note: Tuesday, Jack Kelly (cited on Sunday as a supporter of the Immigration Reform Legislation) informed me today that he is no longer backing the measure as proposed. He said "the devil is in the details," and he thinks the details are not good. Here's how I responded to Jack, a wonderful conservative columnist who should be regularly on TH -- but isn't for some unknown reason:
Jack: I like the proposal better than you do. In that regard, I regularly cite Alexander the Great. "The weak (Republicans) give what they must. The strong (Democrats) take what they wish."
I think this is the best we can get, hopefully with some modifications on enforcement. The alternative is for Hillary and Nancy to write the next bill. In the meantime, we could limp along with the present "policy."
There are 40 million Hispanics (legally) in the U.S. now. If we lose that vote -- as we've lost the Blacks and the women professionals -- we are cooked, and our views on immigration will become even more irrelevant than they are now.
In 1960, Richard Nixon got 32% of the Black vote. If Republicans were still doing that, you and I could run for Pres. and V-P and win big. We're still doing pretty well with white males, but not so well with anyone else.
As I say, it's like being at a Single's Bar after midnight: Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Hewitt, and Kiran Chetry are no longer available, so you look for the next best option. (I haven't been to a Single's Bar since 1985, but I do remember them.) :-)
One of the best bloggers on 'Hugh's Blog" isn't Hugh (basically an appendage of the Romney Campaign), but rather Michael Lewis. Today, he posted the following (in red) in regard to John McCain and immigration reform:
"But while conservative bloggers and writers may serve as opinion leaders, they do not necessarily reflect public opinion. Here is one such example ...
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken last weekend found that 78% of respondents feel people now in the country illegally should be given a chance at citizenship.
Still, it is clear that McCain is out-of-step with the conservative base. Frankly, I cannot think of any example in history where a candidate for president has been embroiled (as a Legislator) in such a hot-button issue -- this close to the nomination. The fact that it's McCain's own doing makes me question his political strategy."
Gee, what if isn't a "political strategy?" What if it's just McCain saying what he truly thinks about what's best for America? I guess that would qualify as a unique "political strategy."
Also, what if McCain really meant what he said -- something never uttered by any other presidential candidate -- that his election to the nation's highest office isn't his main priority? I fear that most of McCain's critics, including several worthies on TH, will never forgive him for being such an honest man.
As Matt Lewis points out in citing the Gallup Poll, the "conservative [anti-immigration reform] base" is not something big enough to brag about. Admittedly, many of the 22% -- let's say half -- are sincerely concerned about issues of legality and illegality.
However, many of those people live in California, which a Republican presidential candidate won't win until perhaps the next Ice Age. Many more live in Texas, where they really aren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton -- much as they apparently dislike John McCain. If those Texans refuse to vote at all, McCain would still win over Hillary in that state.
Others live in Arizona, where McCain will prevail against Hillary without much trouble. Still others live in Colorado and New Mexico, both of which probably will go to the Democrats in 2008. That is, the Dems will win those states if voters go for a nominee (Hillary) much, much softer on amnesty than McCain.
There, I just outlined McCain's "political strategy" -- although, as I said, it's not really a strategy as such. As I've said before, McCain is an authentic American hero. Those who constantly condemn him are much less than that, a fact they should use as something of a disclaimer.
So, let's call the McCain "strategy" one designed not make someone a big winner in the primaries -- and a collosal loser in the general election. On Election Day, the 78% who agree with McCain presumably will be voting for him or for the Democrat (Hillary).
One suspects the 22% might devote the entire day to writing angry comments on Townhall.
I find the 78% figure quite amazing. It means that almost four-in-five Americans support legislation much like that now under consideration. Also, it strong suggests many of the perfervid "commenters" on Townhall, as well as the main blogmeisters (Hugh especially), are out-of-step with the vast majority of their fellow citizens. Why is that so? What does it say about the political acumen of those who hate the Immigration proposals?
Also, what does it say about the political future of people like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter? It indicates that, beyond their current positions, they have no future. Thus, they join Ron Paul in the tinfoil-hat tier.
Yes, the immigration legislation needs more backbone in its enforcement procedures. Yes, it must strengthen the nation's ability to know who's in the country and where -- precisely -- they are.
But this legislation, modified somewhat, will pass. It's time for conservatives to acknowledge that fact -- and to move on. Finally, we might use the occasion to see that John McCain knows more than his critics assume.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Essay to Follow Tomorrow on Townhall's Success -- and Lack Thereof