Republican Phone Bank: Disconnected
Fired!
"Every 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 a fired phone bank employee who said the severance pay the RNC agreed to pay him was contingent on his not criticizing the national committee.
I was not able to get this story up yesterday (it was a busy day). However it is rather significant that the Senate amnesty bill backlash is beginning to crush the Republican party to the point that they had to fire ALL of their phone bank solicitors.
I know I was one of the folks who recieved a call not to long ago from the Republican phone bankers asking for a donation, and I was one who said not until they enforce our border.
This also demonstrates more lies by the White House on this issue.
"We have not heard anyone in our donor calls who supported the president on immigration," said a fired phone solicitor, who described himself as a Republican activist. "We write these comments up from each call, and give them to a supervisor who passes them on to the finance director or the national chairman," he said. "But when I talked with the White House, the people there told me they got nothing but positive comments on the president's immigration stand."
George Bush Jr... Liar liar pants on fire.
Posts
21 comments:
I got a telemarketing call from the NRCC the very same day that the immigration "compromise" was announced.
I told the sweet girl that she'd have a tough time getting any donations. She had her talking points - actually said they told her to say that 1.4 million illegals had been deported in the last 6 years.
How tone deaf can they be - launching a telemarketing fundraising effort when the Republican party is sticking its finger in the eye of its base?
It's not so simple as immigration though. The Rs have been suffering from death by a thousand cuts. If it were only immigration, they would not be down 40% (although I'll grant immigration is probably due for a large percentage of that.).
Well, for the "how deaf can they be" I think they are starting to actually hear now.
It's hard sometimes to hear the cat calls when you are at the top of an ivory tower.
The assumption is "they support us, and we are doing what we are supposed to do."
That mentality doesn't change until the cat calls finally get loud enough to reach the top of the ivory tower.
The phone bank is a primary example of that.
That is a direct line the "common folk" and the powers that be are finally beginning to hear what is being said.
Do not worry if the restrictionist wing has it way there will be very little republican party to donate to. I guarantee the 34,000,000 legal Hispanics voters; Asian and Evangelical voters will give the Democrats a huge victory in 2008.
Let me put it in simple terms
Anti-immigration = victory for democrats Just look at California. Pete Wilson went with the anti-immigrant republicans not only Republicans lost the governorship the lost the Legislative Branch as well. We going to get amnesty either way you look at it. It is better we Republicans at lest have a hand in it. Then we need to attack the real issues like welfare, war on terror and reducing size of government.
The dishonesty starts at the top with George W. Bush. "probational status". What do you have to do to get that? Nothing.
Sign up and you are legal. It's as simple as that. No fines, no nothing.
You go from illegal alien to legal resident and able to remain in the country indefiitely.
That's amnesty and Bush knows it.
I won't go down the list , but a couple of examples will do.
David Books, neocon columnist at N.Y. Times, "Silent majority is for Senate bill".
Doyle McManus, Wash. D.C. Bureau Chief, Los Angles Times, "The unreconstructed Tom Delay Republicans" are the ones who don't like the bill".
First, the silent majority want enforcement of the border and David Brooks knows it.
Second, the Republicans who are against this bill are far larger in number than "Tom Delay". Not to mention Delay is out of office. No that was an attempt by McManus to intentionally smear and distort.
I've never seen this much lying across the board.
Richard,
Now how stupid can that statement be?
1) You have got to be a world class political contortionist to attribute California's loss (from R to D) to the illegal immigration matter. I mean good Lord there is just no, none, zero political reality with that equation. There are plenty of other reason's for Republican slippage in California and none would be because of the illegal immigration issue. Any attempt to set THAT kind of equation displays a remarkable level of political naivete.
2) Another strike in your equation is that Democrats will win because 34 million ILLEGAL aliens will be voting. OH? Now just how do you know that? Or is election fraud something that you don't think would need to be addressed? If your statement is true. So... You either believe that 34 million illegals will vote illegally and you don't care. OR You believe that 34 million illegals will be voting illegally and you do care but want to do nothing about it. Odd considering that fighting welfare, the war on terror and reducing the size of the goverment are immensly more difficult tasks.... Yet you think that tackling all three successfully is actually possible. Again... Naivete.
3) Finally strike three and possibly the most disturbing. You actually attempt to argue this issue from a POLITICAL standpoint instead of what is RIGHT. Or... CONSTITUTIONAL.
I mean are you kidding me? Well heck doing the right thing might lose some votes so let's just go about doing the wrong thing. After all it works for Democrats.
I don't know if that last strike against you is naivete or you actually get it and then it is just plain scary.
Howevere thankfully it WAS strike three and you have thus struck out.
Whew...
Yip Yip
woo hoo! More Republican infighting! Keep it up boys. No more donating to the RNC, no more donating to politicians who support amnesty, no more donations of time towards campaigns...As if Iraq wasn't enough, now we have this side dish of immigration; the multiplication effect could be devastating for the grand oil party.
Corporate cronies beware; just as 69 ushered in the 'emerging republican majority', the run up to 08 will usher in a new majority.
Long live LIBERTY FOR ALL!
I think it is inherently important for those of us who are against illegal immigration to educate the naive and ignorant masses as to the immense harm this illegal invasion has done and is doing to our once great nation. I realize it is like pulling eye-teeth to obtain the status of illegals who are caught by the criminal justice system, but we must continue pursuing all legal means of disclosing the negative aspects of allowing huge masses of selfish opportunists to cut in line ahead of legal immigrants. We can only hope America will awaken from its slumber before it is too late.
To Richard1035am:
You are wrong.
First, of those 34 million legal hispanics, many if not most want the border controlled. Look at Arizona, where illegal alien measures have passed with either majority hispanic support or near majority hispanic support.
Why do citizen hispanics support border enforcement? Because they know wages are knocked down, they are proud Americans who respect the rule of law, and they have seen what happens in their communities with uncontrolled illegal immigration.
So, don't expect to see hispanics go over to the Democrats in droves.
As to Evangelicals and asians, the numbers on Evangelicals who support amnesty is low and overall numbers of asians is low.
On the other hand with the right candidate, Republicans can get a large number of Democrats to vote Republican in '08 because they know the Democratic party is selling them out, who? Blue collar, working middle class voters, Democrats that believe in the rule of law and sovereignty.
Richard, in regards to California, that is a canard that Bush and Mehlman are selling that has been debuncked. California hasn't gone Republican in a presidential election since 1988, well before prop 187 in 1994, also remember Wilson won that race for governor.
Finally, this amnesty would guarntee huge government and higher taxes and more welfare.
So, Richard you are wrong on all counts.
But I see you are drinking the Bush Kool-Aid. Does it taste good?
Traitor, Traitor...always a hater.
He is your President too.
Way to show some conviction Coyote. Never pass on the opportunity to call someone names.
The Senate Amnesty Act of 2007 is a radical piece of legislation. It is not based on conservative principles as stated by White House Spokesman Tony Snow.
Snow goes on to say trust the legislation because you trust Bush because he is a conservative.
Fat chance, Bush is not a Conservative and I don't trust him.
There is a laundry list of policies and actions Bush has taken that spell out clearly his lack of Conservative principles or any principle for that matter.
This Radical Legislation would transform America in many deep and profound ways.
The Rule of Law? Left as a mockery after this legislation becomes law.
Sovereignty? Compromised and left on life supports.
Equality of Citizenship? With a new wave of illegal aliens, and several different statuses, some dead ended or not, fraud riddling the process and citizenship cheapened, truly some would be more equal than others in this Barbaric New America.
Our American Republic is based on bed rock principles of Eqality before the law.
This bill sets up various standards
and levels before the law. And totally ignores others.
This bill is Radical in the Amnesty it gives to corporations who knowingly broke the law over many years and series of violations.
This bill is radical in its treatment of illegal aliens, as they are given probational status with no accounting for violating our laws, and the bill sets bureaucratic requirements that insure overload and failure.
It is radical and dishonest to impose a law that has no chance of working as intended other than to wave a flag at illegal aliens and give a false and misleading patina and veneer of legitimacy.
This bill is radical in it's impact on America.
George W.Bush is no Conservative and neither is this bill.
I personally think this is the only chance at Immigration Reform during the next 2 years ... maybe even longer.
I don't think this is a perfect bill BUT I would rather have these reforms than more of the status quo.
Anon1204,
Huh? Are you talking about the nutroots getting all ticked off at the Democrats for not voting to get out of Iraq?
To anon1109pm:
No. This is a presidential campaign issue of the first magnitude.
This is an abomination of a bill.
At this point in time, no bill is better than a bad bill and this bill is bad in process and substance.
Isn't it obvious that this issue stirs the Republic as no issue has and right fully so. Bush has zero credibility and the process has no credibility (ramming this piece of legislation down the throat of the American people, speaks volumes as to the basic dishonesty involved).
Two years at the top of the American agenda is a small price to pay, as opposed to a rush to judgment on a bill that will have irreprable consequences on the future of the Republic.
This is what presidential politics has been about since the beginning of the Republic.
Does Fred thompsons have the right stuff?
Will Tom Tancredo's ideas be co-opted?
Could Duncan Hunter catch fire.
John McCain is political dead meat.
Rudy Giuliani is a flip-flopper.
So is Mitt Romney.
What will happen?
Yes, no bill is better than this abomination of a bill.
Presidential elections should be about issues that effect the nation.
This issue is about the fabric of the Republic's future.
No issue is more important to the Republic's future.
Anon334,
Huh? What are you saying?
Of course he is my president too. Who said he wasn't?
I'm sorry but your comment is not understandable. Are you saying that George Bush is a traitor?
I know that I have shown conviction, it is one of the hallmarks of this blog but who's calling names?
Anon1109,
We have basically had these reforms before and look what we have got.
We passed a law last year calling for the construction of a fence and look what we have got? The money is still sitting in the bank accound and this bill cuts the fence in half.
This bill may look good in theory. Yet the "triggers" for the guest worker programs and such are the "spending" of money on enforcement. NOT actual results of enforcement.
Of course we all know how good the goverment is at spending money and the public never seeing any results.
I would take the status quo over this bill. Because IF this bill becomes law there will be a flood of illegals (all who will have paperwork saying they have been in this country for 2 years) and our cost of servicing these people at the hospitals, highways, schools etc... will sky rocket.
Very Good
Dear 11:48 American Patriot
First off … I’d love to hear why you think this bill is worse than the status quo because I think this is an important and missing discussion from this blog. But beyond that … let me deal with the meat of your comment.
If I might offer a suggestion … I would agree that President Bush has zero political capital to push a bill of this magnitude though but I would disagree with the assertion that he has zero credibility. He was after all the governor of Texas (a board state). That alone should at least give him some credibility on this topic and it has always been an issue that he personally cares about. You may disagree with his position .. but to say that he lack credibility I think was a poor choice of words.
The processes lacks credibility … I’ll agree … to a point. The process did have a good mix of historically conservative and liberal senators working on this process BUT it was done behind close doors. I am not sure any legislation … especially the emotionally charged issues of immigration can be solved in an open process. Too much demagoguery on both sides.
I hope you’re right … that immigration becomes THE issue of both parties. I think all voters want SOMETHING to be done because no one likes the status quo but I don’t think the Democratic candidates have been forced to act on this issue yet. If I wasn’t clear … I think this issue is active in the Republican primary but not yet in the Democratic one. I think it’s less than a 50/50 proposition that a Republican wins the White House and I have no idea where the Democrats are on this issue. I think they understand how much it’s fracturing the Republicans and would like to drag this along. I think having this issue remain active for the next 2 to 10 years will do more harm than good to the Republican Party and I hope it goes away soon.
Mr. Coyote …
Like I said above … I hope you can do a longer post on this because I really think the argument that this is worse than the status quo is an important argument for nativists.
I disagree that this bill is the same as previous reforms … it has similar sections. But no immigration bill can measure against this in depth or scope. It truly does A LITTLE of everything.
Personally … I think your argument loses most of it gusto when in paragraph 2 you complain about the lack for spending. And then in paragraph 3 and 4 complain about the use of spending as targets and “not actual results.” So … what measurable result do you think would be better?
Actually … I partially agree with your statement. I DO think more people will flood into this country to meet the citizenship requirements of this bill. BUT I think this flood will come with ANY comprehensive bill on immigration and the longer we wait … the great the opportunity for foreign born immigrants to illegally migrate to America knowing that a chance to a permanent status is coming shortly. But my argument really only holds merit if we agree with my assumption that a comprehensive approach to immigration is the only legislative outcome, if, given the democratic majorities in Congress.
The Status Quo: Millions of immigrants illegally enter the United State and get jobs, send billions of dollars out of country and have "anchor" babies to insure that if they get caught they can stay. However, tere exists a chance that if they get caught they will be deported. Deportation rates are not as high as some would like, but people are being deported.
The Bill currently being debated and pushed by the White House: Gets rid of the possiblity of deportation. Of the 20 million or so illegal aliens already here, they magically become legal as soon as Bush signs the bill into law.
Amnesty has been tried before. Reagan signed an amnesty bill into law. Look how good that worked. It encourages more illegals, from whatever country to come here.
"Hey, if I can get there and wait long enough, they will give me amnesty too."
In 84, the number of illegals in this country was around 3 million. In the grand scheme of 250,000,000 3 million is a pitence. 20 years later there are close to 20 million illegals. How many more illegals will there be 20 years from now? 100 million?
Sometimes a bad bill is better than no bill. BUT, and here is the rub, that bad bill has to be in the right direction. This one isn't.
This bill goes beyond being Amnesty Bill of 2007. This is the Surrender of Sovergienty Bill of 2007. This bill does nothing more than make the border between Mexico and the United States and irrelevent line on a map.
And whats this hooey about 34 million legal immigrants supporting the the Surrender of Sovereignty Bill?
There is nothing more frustating to person than to follow the rules, to the letter, then sit there watch others be rewarded for breaking the law.
Oh sure, you are going to get some people that look at it "I'm hispanic, therefore I have to support all my brown brothers and sisters."
But the majority are pissed. Spend some time in the real world and ask some legal immigrants how they feel about this bill.
I have a friend from El Salvador who immigrated legally, jumped thru all the hoops and became a citizen. He is pissed about this.
Stop getting your information from biased sourses. Actually go out and do your own research. You'll be surprised at what you learn.
Anon1109,1004,
I reject out of hand your "nativist" comment. It betrays the fact that you are closed minded on the issue and when faced with the reality of the situation will quickly resort to name calling.
Secondly you obviously lack the ability to follow the debate and discuss it honestly when you say this: " I’d love to hear why you think this bill is worse than the status quo because I think this is an important and missing discussion from this blog. "
I explained his point and I know you saw it because you responded to it. Therefore you are being dishonest when yo usay that a)the point is missing from the blog and b) you don't know the difference between the status quo and and this bill.
Like President Bush you are quickly resorting to dishonesty in this debate. Along with name calling.
Finally there is your third strike. That is where you can't differentiate the differences between my 2nd, 3r and 4th paragraphs. Read this slowly now. OK?
The basis of the reforms or "triggers" to which you seem to have hitched your wagon are all "spending" based. Not "outcomes" based. Yet we have seen that even with "spending" on a CURRENT law. Do you not see that? Do you really trust that the enforcement part or "trigger" part of this bill will actually happen?
If so based on what? You can't base it on the word of the president. As stated before, he has no, zero, credibility anymore.
You can't base it on the enforcement package passed last year. Because IT HAS NOT HAPPENED yet.
However what we do know is that the flooding of more illegals WILL take place. Because it has happened before and is continuing to happen. We do know that we WILL continue to spend billions of public tax dollars on these illegals. Because... well because that is what this government does.
So you need to start substantiating your position much more beyond simple name calling. It is not helping your credibility.
To anon1109pm and 1004am:
First off, you lose credibility when you call "nativist" the other side of the argument. But I'll ignore that as poor persuasive power on your part.
Second, the status quo is not good, agreed. But we have laws on the books that aren't being enforced with any real vigor. So enforce the law. When you can show that the current law is being enforced with vigor, that is a first step.
Simply giving legal residence to up to 20 million illegal aliens will encourage more of the same behavior. This bill clearly does that. Many of these "residents" will not go on to become citizens and assimilate, that is dangerous for America.
A better solution can be had with solid leadership at the Presidential level.
As to your conclusion about Bush's credibility, I couldn't disagree more. True Bush has no political capital, but he also has no credibility either.
Last week Bush attacked the one solid base of support he has by calling names, kinda like your "nativist" label. That does not persuade.
Bush is dishonest about the bill. He says "it's not amnesty", yet the Senate bill and the '86 amnesty are identical in their parallel and corresponding sections, as in the "Z visa".
Basic honesty is a requirement for credibility, Bush doesn't have it.
No credibility was the perfect choice of words, but you can throw in "no political capital" and I'm O.K. with that.
Bush's experience as a border state governor does not carry much water with me. This is a National problem and Bush's experience as a "weak" (I say weak because the powers of the Texas governor are limited) governor says nothing, particularly when Bush has had six years to enforce the border, but basically turned a blind eye, until he thought he needed some propaganda to help pass this bill.
This is a democratic Republic...we have an open process...too bad if toes get stepped on.
You're wrong about the
Democrats. They want immigration off the table as soon as possible. Why? Because it could split their party as Blue collar, working middle class Democrats know this hurts their wages.
Also, in the last week the major Democratic candidates went socialist and saying the little guy is being hurt. That doesn't square with allowing millions of foreigners to cut wages and strain social services.
Some issues are national Presidential issues, Yes, this is a fever, but sometimes you need to "break a sweat" to "break the fever" and get well. I believe America needs to hash this out.
You are absolutely right, no bill can come close to the "depth or scope" of how bad this bill is.
A threat to the future of the Republic is not an understatement.
Measurable results is what matters, not just bureaucratic inputs. Heck, Bush won't even build the fence that he signed into law, except 11 miles built as a backdrop for one of his propaganda photo-ops.
A true clamp down would include sharp border enforcement, interior enforcement on employers, and active deportation of criminals, such as gang members and others who have committed crimes while in this country.
A solution can be had without encouraging another run on the border by illegal aliens.
Anon1109 can you talk about the substantive provisions of the bill? Because so far, your side has been long on rhetoric and short on defending specifics of the bill.
Why? I suspect even your side knows the bill is undefendable.
Post a Comment