Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
wallpaper Barbie Hsu wedding Dress,
cygent
08-23 10:56 PM
Any success stories / anybody in progress (we can form a team/strategize?) - Or could you point me towards a related thread?
PD March, 2005 EB3
Labor - RIR, Approved 04/2007
I-140 filed 06/2007 (pending)
I-485 filed 07/2007 (of course pending)
Case - Working for petitioning Employer who is folding up :mad:.
Is there a difference b/w a company folding vs. getting bought out or changed name, etc. Any insight will be greatly appreciated with good karma.
PD March, 2005 EB3
Labor - RIR, Approved 04/2007
I-140 filed 06/2007 (pending)
I-485 filed 07/2007 (of course pending)
Case - Working for petitioning Employer who is folding up :mad:.
Is there a difference b/w a company folding vs. getting bought out or changed name, etc. Any insight will be greatly appreciated with good karma.
atilakmca
10-14 02:16 PM
is it possible and advisable to convert H1 B to H4 and go on searching for job and if find a job then coming back to H1? Are there any risks in this process? if so can some one explain me in detail?
Thanks
Tilak
Thanks
Tilak
2011 Wedding of Barbie Hsu and Wang
contact
10-14 03:09 PM
is it possible and advisable to convert H1 B to H4 and go on searching for job and if find a job then coming back to H1? Are there any risks in this process? if so can some one explain me in detail?
Yes you can switch from H-1b to H4 status. later on when the prospective employer finds a new job for you then that they can file a change of status application from H4 to H-1b under non cap case.
Note: This is not a legal advice, please consult an attorney
Yes you can switch from H-1b to H4 status. later on when the prospective employer finds a new job for you then that they can file a change of status application from H4 to H-1b under non cap case.
Note: This is not a legal advice, please consult an attorney
more...
cbadari99
03-01 11:52 PM
If you worked as a TA/RA and received compensation for that, you should mention your University as your previous employer.
This is what I did. However it is better if you consult your attorney.
This is what I did. However it is better if you consult your attorney.
EJC
07-02 03:53 PM
I just registered but I have been reading the forums a long time.
This is bad news about July visa bulletin being changed. I'm sorry for everybody who had bad news.
I think maybe it is bad news for me too.
I was waiting for interview letter, my PD is March 2006 but I am going thru consular processing. I have I140 approved since February 2006.
I have 'case complete' and was waiting for packet 4.
I don't know what this all means for me now.
This is bad news about July visa bulletin being changed. I'm sorry for everybody who had bad news.
I think maybe it is bad news for me too.
I was waiting for interview letter, my PD is March 2006 but I am going thru consular processing. I have I140 approved since February 2006.
I have 'case complete' and was waiting for packet 4.
I don't know what this all means for me now.
more...
watzgc
09-18 04:36 PM
what type of cases, you meant ?
I can't help but notice that about 1/4 of recently processed audit cases were denied. As it goes now, I'll have to wait about another 6 month for a 75% chance to pass. Well for where the economy is headed right now it all probably won't matter anymore in 6 months.
I can't help but notice that about 1/4 of recently processed audit cases were denied. As it goes now, I'll have to wait about another 6 month for a 75% chance to pass. Well for where the economy is headed right now it all probably won't matter anymore in 6 months.
2010 Louis Koo and Barbie Hsu grace
meghamle
06-27 11:05 PM
I am working on L1B and also have H1B (without I94) from another employer
I am filing L1B extension and H1B Change of Status at same time
Situation 1) My L1B Extensions paper with (I94) comes prior to H1B change of status paper (with I94),
which VISA will be applicable to me and my dependent spouse
Situation 2) My L1B Extensions paper with (I94) comes after H1B change of status paper (with I94),
which VISA will be applicable to me and my dependent spouse
I am filing L1B extension and H1B Change of Status at same time
Situation 1) My L1B Extensions paper with (I94) comes prior to H1B change of status paper (with I94),
which VISA will be applicable to me and my dependent spouse
Situation 2) My L1B Extensions paper with (I94) comes after H1B change of status paper (with I94),
which VISA will be applicable to me and my dependent spouse
more...
ragool25
11-07 07:24 PM
Hi Legal Attorney's,
I am looking for Lawyer who can process & Handle my case from A-Z from B2 Visa to F1 Visa.
I am in US now, I have a valid I-20 from a accredited University, and my B2 visa valid until Feb'2, 2011, I am from India & Single.
I want a legal Professional to proceed my case with best service charge in the market.
My email Address: ragool@live.com
If any Legal professionals Interested and able to handle my case, Please email me with contact details with service charge.
I will get to back to you asap.
Looking forward to hearing from someone here in Immmigration voice
Thanks
Ragool.
I am looking for Lawyer who can process & Handle my case from A-Z from B2 Visa to F1 Visa.
I am in US now, I have a valid I-20 from a accredited University, and my B2 visa valid until Feb'2, 2011, I am from India & Single.
I want a legal Professional to proceed my case with best service charge in the market.
My email Address: ragool@live.com
If any Legal professionals Interested and able to handle my case, Please email me with contact details with service charge.
I will get to back to you asap.
Looking forward to hearing from someone here in Immmigration voice
Thanks
Ragool.
hair of their friend Barbie Hsu
Blog Feeds
02-05 06:40 PM
South African-born Dave Matthews, the lead singer of rock band the Dave Matthews Band is having a great year with his most recent album, Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King nominated this evening for a Grammy for Album of the Year. Matthews gave a great performance at the Haiti telethon last weekend with Neil Young. He's been active in a number of other charities helping farmers, Hurricane Katrina victims and victims of the Virginia Tech shooting (Matthews' hometown is Charlottesville, Virginia). Matthews is also an actor and has been in a number of movies including Because of Winn-Dixie, a favorite...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/immigrant-of-the-day-dave-matthews-musician.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/immigrant-of-the-day-dave-matthews-musician.html)
more...
gcformeornot
04-09 01:27 PM
quota is open.... try again...
hot Barbie Hsu (San Chai)
Blog Feeds
04-30 10:20 AM
From MALDEF: The effects of Arizona�s new immigration law (SB 1070) have created a national crisis that is resonating throughout the country, said NCLR (National Council of La Raza), the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. Yesterday, several members of Congress stood up and spoke out against the misguided Arizona law. �We applaud Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D�NV) and Senators Dick Durbin (D�IL), Charles Schumer (D�NY), Patrick Leahy (D�VT), Dianne Feinstein (D�CA), and Robert Menendez (D�NJ), who are set to officially unveil their outline for a comprehensive immigration reform bill this afternoon. In...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/dems-formally-unveil-immigration-proposal.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/dems-formally-unveil-immigration-proposal.html)
more...
house Barbie Hsu#39;s wedding,
caydee
07-14 08:35 PM
Did IV collect names Tel # of the participants of this rally?
Yes, during registration. All participants were asked to register before the rally........
Yes, during registration. All participants were asked to register before the rally........
tattoo Barbie Hsu (of quot;Meteor
nomorehope
05-12 03:44 PM
Mine was filed in august 2007. It took 45 days for it to get audited and it has ever since been in process, that is close to 7 months after audit response.
hope for the best
hope for the best
more...
pictures of their friend Barbie Hsu
paskal
03-01 01:14 PM
Please help reactivate this group. We have 27 members on our group but it's hard to get 1 reply. We have successfully met two lawmakers recently and more such contacts are urgently needed. A mail was sent out to the group today. If you do not get it, check your junk/spam folders and make sure the group id is added to your safe list. Folks, this time we do not want to come up short. Let's not be in a position to regret our failings in hindsight.
dresses Barbie Hsu amp; Peter Ho#39;s
myuserid
01-29 08:36 PM
I am on H4 visa, based in Georgia. Did anyone get �Change of Maiden Name to Married Name� done on passport from Indian Consulate Houston, TX.
Can anyone tell me what am I supposed to write in the �Surname� column in the new online application form ? The old application had 2 columns, 1 for maiden name and the other for Desired Name, but the new online application form has only 1 Surname column. I am confused as to what should I write � my maiden name or my married name. I do have the notarization done on the affidavit form. Does this give me the right to write my married name ? Which name should I sign in the application- maiden or married name?
AlsoI have heard that anybody submitting �Change of Maiden Name to Married Name� application in person, to Indian Consulate Houston, has to collect the new passport at the counter in person, the passport will not be mailed to him/her. The passport is only sent by mail to those who have sent the documents to Indian Consulate Houston by mail.
Is it true?
Can anyone tell me what am I supposed to write in the �Surname� column in the new online application form ? The old application had 2 columns, 1 for maiden name and the other for Desired Name, but the new online application form has only 1 Surname column. I am confused as to what should I write � my maiden name or my married name. I do have the notarization done on the affidavit form. Does this give me the right to write my married name ? Which name should I sign in the application- maiden or married name?
AlsoI have heard that anybody submitting �Change of Maiden Name to Married Name� application in person, to Indian Consulate Houston, has to collect the new passport at the counter in person, the passport will not be mailed to him/her. The passport is only sent by mail to those who have sent the documents to Indian Consulate Houston by mail.
Is it true?
more...
makeup actress Barbie Hsu
PIXELTRON
03-28 02:34 PM
I also wanted to include this sketch
girlfriend Barbie Hsu Wedding: Barbie Hsu
nobody
04-30 07:57 PM
*stamp pets you back*
hairstyles Read more on: Barbie Hsu Wang
msadiqali
10-06 01:32 AM
Finally some movement from GCC states to satisfy their peoples wishes
The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html)
The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html)
Macaca
08-16 05:49 PM
Graham Facing More Heat on Immigration (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/politics/19734-1.html) By Matthew Murray, ROLL CALL STAFF, August 13, 2007
For the second time this month, a local South Carolina Republican Party committee is expected to decide soon whether to formally scold Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) for supporting the Senate's now-stalled immigration overhaul proposal, putting the once-popular lawmaker on the defensive and upping the ante for a potential 2008 primary challenger.
"The frustration [with Graham] is real," said one state Republican source, who added that the state's large conservative base is "just searching for someone" to challenge Graham in next year's primary.
The Spartanburg County Republican Party is expected to vote Aug. 23 on a resolution officially rebuking Graham for supporting his chamber's immigration bill. Criticism of the reform package, which was shelved last month after failing to gather the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate in the Senate, has raged throughout the country and particularly in states such as South Carolina, where AM talk-radio hosts have bloodied the Senate proposal and said it tries to reward those who have broken the law.
Rick Beltram, chairman of the Spartanburg County Republican Party, said he doubts a resolution criticizing Graham's stance on immigration would pass by a wide margin. But should the measure come up for a vote, Beltram already has developed a game plan to manage what likely will be an angry lot.
"This being as explosive as it is, we would ask for a secret ballot so 30 or 40 Rep. Ron Paul [R-Texas] people yelling in the background wouldn't have an influence on the election," Beltram said.
Last week, the Greenville County Republican Party passed a resolution censuring Graham for continuing to "adamantly support legalization of illegal immigrants." In addition to immigration, local party officials reprimanded Graham for supporting campaign finance reform and participating two years ago in the "Gang of 14," a bipartisan Senate group that negotiated a compromise on controversial federal judicial nominations.
The resolution also criticized Graham's recent statements before the National Council of La Raza, which were captured by cable news networks.
"We are not going to run people down. We are not going to scapegoat people. We are going to tell the bigots to shut up and we're going to get this right," Graham told the crowd.
Samuel Harms, the Greenville GOP chairman whose group adopted a resolution in 2001 "opposing any legalization of illegal immigration," said Graham's speech to La Raza was the "straw that broke the camel's back." He added that the resolution was "about informing people that Lindsey Graham called the good people of Greenville bigots and that we need to be told to shut up."
A successful censure vote next week in Spartanburg may signal a widening opportunity for a potential Graham challenger next year. So far, Graham faces only token primary opposition and last month he dodged a potential bullet when popular state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel (R), who was considering a run, was arrested for allegedly distributing cocaine.
Democrats have yet to find a challenger to the first-term Senator.
After recapturing some of the love lost during his Gang of 14 days, a GOP source said Graham's recent bruising for supporting the immigration bill may convince some conservative party activists that an opportunity is again at hand. Also, Graham's support of tanking presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign, the source said, is not helping his cause.
"The immigration issue reignited the ember," the source said.
Still, with Graham sitting on $4 million in the bank, potential primary challengers face a steep uphill battle contending with an incumbent who may have twice that total squirrelled away before the year's end. Lt. Gov. Andr� Bauer (R), frequently said to be mulling a run, told Roll Call last week that he has not ruled out the possibility of challenging Graham.
"I would never say never," Bauer said. "But I don't have any plans to run against him."
But Bauer does plan to appear at the Aug. 23 meeting of the Spartanburg County GOP.
Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, said that while it's unusual for party activists to go to such extremes with federal officeholders, the immigration issue has struck a nerve with the party's base.
"You can't bluff it, you can't beat around the bush about it, it's there and it's real," he said. "Lindsey has a different philosophy on immigration and there's no question it's hurting him."
For now, Graham appears to be resting on his conservative laurels and betting that the controversy will pass. Graham currently is out of the country, his campaign said Friday, but will return to the state to campaign later this month.
"Lindsey Graham is a strong conservative voice in the U.S. Senate with a lifetime conservative rating of 91," according to a statement provided by spokesman Scott Farmer. "He will seek re-election based on his conservative voting record and willingness to tackle the hard problems facing our nation."
Whit Ayers, a Republican pollster, said immigration undoubtedly is a challenging issue, but one that plays to Graham's strengths. Even more, despite the current controversy, Ayers said voters ultimately respect lawmakers who take principled positions.
"Sen. Graham is a remarkedly adept politician who will be able to be very persuasive about the reasons why he's done the things he's done," Ayers said. "I don't think we would expect our politicians to be in lock step on every single issue that comes up."
He added: "There's no question that Lindsey Graham is right where most Republican voters in South Carolina are on God, guns, gays and taxes."
For the second time this month, a local South Carolina Republican Party committee is expected to decide soon whether to formally scold Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) for supporting the Senate's now-stalled immigration overhaul proposal, putting the once-popular lawmaker on the defensive and upping the ante for a potential 2008 primary challenger.
"The frustration [with Graham] is real," said one state Republican source, who added that the state's large conservative base is "just searching for someone" to challenge Graham in next year's primary.
The Spartanburg County Republican Party is expected to vote Aug. 23 on a resolution officially rebuking Graham for supporting his chamber's immigration bill. Criticism of the reform package, which was shelved last month after failing to gather the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate in the Senate, has raged throughout the country and particularly in states such as South Carolina, where AM talk-radio hosts have bloodied the Senate proposal and said it tries to reward those who have broken the law.
Rick Beltram, chairman of the Spartanburg County Republican Party, said he doubts a resolution criticizing Graham's stance on immigration would pass by a wide margin. But should the measure come up for a vote, Beltram already has developed a game plan to manage what likely will be an angry lot.
"This being as explosive as it is, we would ask for a secret ballot so 30 or 40 Rep. Ron Paul [R-Texas] people yelling in the background wouldn't have an influence on the election," Beltram said.
Last week, the Greenville County Republican Party passed a resolution censuring Graham for continuing to "adamantly support legalization of illegal immigrants." In addition to immigration, local party officials reprimanded Graham for supporting campaign finance reform and participating two years ago in the "Gang of 14," a bipartisan Senate group that negotiated a compromise on controversial federal judicial nominations.
The resolution also criticized Graham's recent statements before the National Council of La Raza, which were captured by cable news networks.
"We are not going to run people down. We are not going to scapegoat people. We are going to tell the bigots to shut up and we're going to get this right," Graham told the crowd.
Samuel Harms, the Greenville GOP chairman whose group adopted a resolution in 2001 "opposing any legalization of illegal immigration," said Graham's speech to La Raza was the "straw that broke the camel's back." He added that the resolution was "about informing people that Lindsey Graham called the good people of Greenville bigots and that we need to be told to shut up."
A successful censure vote next week in Spartanburg may signal a widening opportunity for a potential Graham challenger next year. So far, Graham faces only token primary opposition and last month he dodged a potential bullet when popular state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel (R), who was considering a run, was arrested for allegedly distributing cocaine.
Democrats have yet to find a challenger to the first-term Senator.
After recapturing some of the love lost during his Gang of 14 days, a GOP source said Graham's recent bruising for supporting the immigration bill may convince some conservative party activists that an opportunity is again at hand. Also, Graham's support of tanking presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign, the source said, is not helping his cause.
"The immigration issue reignited the ember," the source said.
Still, with Graham sitting on $4 million in the bank, potential primary challengers face a steep uphill battle contending with an incumbent who may have twice that total squirrelled away before the year's end. Lt. Gov. Andr� Bauer (R), frequently said to be mulling a run, told Roll Call last week that he has not ruled out the possibility of challenging Graham.
"I would never say never," Bauer said. "But I don't have any plans to run against him."
But Bauer does plan to appear at the Aug. 23 meeting of the Spartanburg County GOP.
Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, said that while it's unusual for party activists to go to such extremes with federal officeholders, the immigration issue has struck a nerve with the party's base.
"You can't bluff it, you can't beat around the bush about it, it's there and it's real," he said. "Lindsey has a different philosophy on immigration and there's no question it's hurting him."
For now, Graham appears to be resting on his conservative laurels and betting that the controversy will pass. Graham currently is out of the country, his campaign said Friday, but will return to the state to campaign later this month.
"Lindsey Graham is a strong conservative voice in the U.S. Senate with a lifetime conservative rating of 91," according to a statement provided by spokesman Scott Farmer. "He will seek re-election based on his conservative voting record and willingness to tackle the hard problems facing our nation."
Whit Ayers, a Republican pollster, said immigration undoubtedly is a challenging issue, but one that plays to Graham's strengths. Even more, despite the current controversy, Ayers said voters ultimately respect lawmakers who take principled positions.
"Sen. Graham is a remarkedly adept politician who will be able to be very persuasive about the reasons why he's done the things he's done," Ayers said. "I don't think we would expect our politicians to be in lock step on every single issue that comes up."
He added: "There's no question that Lindsey Graham is right where most Republican voters in South Carolina are on God, guns, gays and taxes."
rogerdepena
04-30 10:42 PM
very nice show. i didnt know minutemen are composed fo old folks.
No comments:
Post a Comment