November 10, 2006

Living in the Promised Land

The song Sugarchuck recommended is not available on iTunes. I suspect Bill O'Reilly had it removed, but that is sheer conjecture on my part.

My ideological immigration soulmates on the WSJ Ed Page are hitting it hard today. I don't want to beat this to death, but I would like to convince my blog brethren that it is indeed bad politics, even if I cannot convince them it is bad economics, or bad policy.

Republicans can't say they weren't warned. Like trade protectionism, the immigration issue is the fool's gold of American politics. Voters like to sound off to pollsters about immigrants, yet they pull the lever with other matters foremost in mind. Elections seldom if ever turn on immigration, and the GOP restrictionist message so adored by talk radio, cable news and the nativist blogosphere once again failed to deliver the goods.
I suggested that Wednesday's results obviously underscored this issue as an electoral loser. JohnGalt pointed out that some tough immigration enforcement candidates on both sides won. I'm glad Marilyn Musgrave won in CO-04. But it is worth noting that the district went 58-41 for George Bush in 2004. Rep Musgrave won in a squeaker that wasn't decided when I went to bed -- in a 17-point GOP district.

The WSJEdPage does the research on the other races.

These Democratic gains came in solidly Republican districts that President Bush won easily two years ago. Mr. Graf was seeking to fill the slot now held by Representative Jim Kolbe, an 11-term Republican who's retiring. Mr. Kolbe is a supporter of the comprehensive approach to immigration reform favored by the President but spurned by GOP restrictionists. It would combine more border security with a guest-worker program for newcomers and a path to legal status for undocumented workers already here. Mr. Kolbe won 60% of the vote in 2004. Mr. Graf was trounced, 54%-42%, on Tuesday, after having won a primary against a Republican with views similar to Mr. Kolbe's who could have held the seat.

Indiana incumbent John Hostettler, who chairs a House subcommittee on immigration and is one of his party's most outspoken restrictionists, managed to win just 39% of the vote in his losing bid for a seventh term. Mr. Hostettler's district is so Republican that John Kerry won only 38% of the vote there in 2004.

Colorado Congressman Bob Beauprez made opposition to illegal aliens the centerpiece of his gubernatorial bid. He lost to his Democratic opponent by 15 percentage points. The GOP candidate who ran to replace Mr. Beauprez in the House and appropriated much of his anti-immigration rhetoric also lost by nearly as much.


Posted by jk at November 10, 2006 12:55 PM

I linked to the Willie lyrics in the original post, right below sc's mention.

Using Musgrave as a data point in the illegal immigration "loser" analysis is specious since her opponent also claimed to be "tough on immigration." The reason that Musgrave's margins have narrowed in the last 2 elections is the "purplification" of Colorado. She won handily in all but two counties: Boulder and Larimer. See: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/CO/H/04/county.000.html

J.D. Hayworth, whom you didn't mention, was tainted by Abramoff money. The other R rep in AZ who lost was bested by a Democrat who campaigned harder on immigration than he did. I'm just saying there's a huge correlation/causation problem here.

Additionally, if voters "pull the lever with other matters [than immigrants] in mind, why are we (you) so quick to conclude that they pulled the OTHER lever with THIS matter in mind?

Posted by: johngalt at November 10, 2006 3:42 PM

The Tancredo wing thought opposition to the President and Senate Republicans was a winner.

I'm not saying people pulled the other lever. I claim a legislative accomplishment would have been nice to run on: look, we created and passed a significant reform bill. We're Republicans and we're getting important things done.

Instead they split troops, alienated a large hunk of the base, and allowed the Democrats to run against their lack of accomplishment.

There are a thousand policies I believe in that I know would be electoral losers. I want the natavists/populists to see that this is not a winner. Ummm, before 2008 would be nice.

Posted by: jk at November 10, 2006 4:34 PM

Looking back I think the House and Senate leadership who brought the immigration issue to the floor truly believed there WOULD be a legislative accomplishment. The problem was that in its supposed "compromise" plan the Senate was unwilling to compromise with the House on some of the important elements. An "accomplishment" like the Senate plan would have been as much an electoral loser as legislative earmarks.

I think we both have to admit that the nativists/populists are not convinced in the wake of Gray Tuesday. Winner or loser politically, principled Americans know it is wrong for property owners in CA, AZ and NM to be costantly invaded and injured by economic refugees on the "aboveground railroad."

One group that was clearly repudiated, however, was the "compassionate conservatives" or whatever you want to call the cut taxes/increase spending Republicans. I've seen no post election punditry claiming any support for that GWB policy.

Also on the defensive will be the neocons who apply that same government handout policy to foreign affairs by allowing nation building to be placed at the same priority as defeating America's enemies.

Posted by: johngalt at November 11, 2006 12:29 PM

And how is the weather on Planet JohnGalt today? (I guess the honeymoon spirit of bipartisanship really is over).

The SENATE was unwilling to compromise? No way. The Senate pushed a business and immigrant friendly bill and expected the House to add security. The House slipped into a Bill O'Rielly-Lou Dobbs whirlpool and claimed that it had to be enforcement only. I never heard a single Republican Senator say that he/she would not accept increased security with a guest worker program or path to citizenship.

I will credit you with the individualism you prize: you're the only guy I ever heard say that a deal was undone by Senate intransigence.

Sorry for the name calling, but I thought we had agreement. I have accepted the JG seven points. They create law and order, rescue border owners from blight, humanely accept foreign workers, and provide sufficient labor for the American economy. Man, I thought this was settled.

Posted by: jk at November 11, 2006 1:55 PM

What is it our parents told us? "It takes two to tangle." Because the Senate calls their bill a "compromise" then failure to work out differences with the House is completely the House's fault? Where are the statesmen?

It's settled 'twixt you and I, but not on Capitol Hill.

Posted by: johngalt at November 13, 2006 2:43 PM | What do you think? [5]