Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (77713)	2/19/2010 10:23:50 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I hear ya Peter. It's scary to think about what they could do. Let's say they do circumvent the Republicans on Health Care & force it through via reconciliation. That means for probably in the first time in history an Über major piece of legislation was passed with ZERO bipartisan support. That would be unprecedented. IMHO, I doubt they would even try to push through any more massive pieces of legislation without people rising up by the millions to protest it. The Nov elections would result in center-right America standing up & sending libs everywhere a major lesson. Within months the new Congress [and possibly the Supreme Court] would undo most of the damage. TWT

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (77713)	2/19/2010 11:10:32 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Immigration Up, Republicans Down Mark Krikorian The Corner Derb recently linked to comments from union leader (and honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America) Eliseo Medina boasting that through amnesty and continued mass immigration, Democrats look forward to "creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle." Jim Gimpel, a government professor at the University of Maryland, confirms Medina's analysis in this new report: <<< Using standard statistical methods, this research has directly estimated the impact of the rising percentage of immigrants across U.S. counties on Republican presidential voting in the eight presidential elections from 1980 to 2008. The conclusion is inescapable and uncomplicated. As the immigrant population has grown, Republican electoral prospects have dimmed, even after controlling for alternative explanations of GOP performance. >>> Specifically: <<< In counties of at least 50,000, where the immigrant share increased by at least two percentage points from 1980 to 2008, 62 percent saw a decline in the Republican percentage. In counties with at least a four percentage-point increase, 74 percent saw a decline in the GOP vote. In counties with at least a six percentage-point gain in the immigrant share, 83 percent saw a decline in the GOP vote share. >>> In short, immigration up, Republicans down. Note that this trend started in at least 1980, before the notorious thought criminal Tom Tancredo came on the stage. It continued despite (because?) President Reagan and a Republican Senate passing the first big amnesty (sorry, "comprehensive immigration reform") for 3 million illegal aliens. It continued despite (because of?) the fact that Bush 41 signed into law a huge increase in legal immigration in 1990. Gimpel's conclusion describes the only way the GOP can survive as a viable, conservative institution: <<< Republicans are right to want to attract Latino voters. They are indisputably a growing share of the population and the electorate. But expanding the future flow of low-skilled immigrants into an economy ill-suited to promote their upward mobility will clearly be counterproductive given the evidence presented here. At the same time, Republican opposition to higher immigration levels can be too easily typecast as racist and xenophobic. This is because the party’s elites have failed to deliver a clear message that they want a pro-immigrant policy of reduced immigration and that these two goals are complementary. Such a policy would also prove to be the best means for moving immigrants toward the middle and upper income status that will promote their geographic and political mobility. >>> Read the whole thing. corner.nationalreview.com