GOP created a nativist monster: How radical wingnuts seized the party

KingOrfeo

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Posts
39,182
From Salon:

Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 12:57 PM EDT

GOP created a nativist monster: How radical wingnuts seized the party

From churches to the Chamber of Commerce, pro-immigration Republicans are now under the thumb of loons. Here's why

Heather Digby Parton


Politico ran an interesting article last Friday about the apparent stall of momentum on immigration reform that was assumed to be on the way to a reasonable compromise just a few months ago. It begins, naturally, with an assault on the liberal immigration reform groups for speaking out of turn and making the president angry with their incessant demands. He’s quoted as saying “If you take the pressure off of them and put it on me, you’ll guarantee that there is no legislation.” Evidently he actually believed that the Republicans would respond to pressure from Hispanic rights groups. (One might have thought that the fact that they wouldn’t even respond to pressure from the Chamber of Commerce, Evangelical preachers and even the Koch brothers on this issue would have made it obvious that such activism was quixotic to say the least.)

These activists felt their best chance at pushing the debate would be to push the Democratic Party and the Obama administration because it was where they had leverage. They knew very well that they were an important political faction to the party but nonetheless, having watched other valuable members of the Democratic coalition tread softly upon request, they knew how likely it was that they’d be sacrificed on the pyre of political expediency. So they got in the administration’s face.

And it must be noted as well that immigration reform advocates had some legitimate gripes against the administration, which had been deporting more undocumented workers than his predecessor. (These tended to be the most recent and the closest to the border, however, and those with longer residencies were not being targeted as they had been in the past — a particular gripe of the nativist right, who believe that ICE raids on longtime residents are perfectly appropriate.) But this blow-up happened at the end of a very long journey to nowhere.

Everyone had cheered when the Senate passed a bill in 2013, even the activists who saw very clearly that the Senate bill’s onerous provisions for “border security” would likely result in a major escalation of what is already a highly militarized border. They had waited patiently for further action, so to be lectured by the president didn’t sit well. After all, if there’s one ethnic group (alongside African-Americans) that understands the visceral opposition of the American right wing, it’s Latinos. Some had placed their hopes in George W. Bush and look how that turned out:

“The conservative hosts really did make a crusade,” Mark Jurkowitz, a media researcher with Pew, said. “It’s hard to quantify how many [senators’] votes were changed in 2007, I don’t know. But I do know the talk hosts—and probably no one more so than Rush Limbaugh—are very capable of motivating their listeners to make calls about a certain issue.”

[...]

Trent Lott, the Republican Senate whip in 2007, received a lot of those calls from talk-radio listeners. “I’ve had my phones jammed for three weeks,” he told The Washington Post at the time. “Talk radio is running America,” he lamented after the bill’s defeat. “We have to deal with that problem.”

He didn’t mention Fox News, but it had a hand in it too. (How’s that “dealing with talk radio” going these days? Maybe Eric Cantor has some thoughts …)

Anyway, after having made sure to lay plenty of blame on the activists who behaved badly by demanding their rights, the Politico article pivots to the actual miscreants in this story, Republicans of the far right. Whatever political clout Latinos may have with the Democratic Party is nothing to the clout these right-wing Tea Partyers and their close allies, the neo-Confederates, have within the GOP. And they are clear as day on this issue: They do not want comprehensive immigration reform, which almost all of them characterize as “amnesty.”

The minute they saw John Boehner making the tiniest of moves toward a compromise bill, they went to work. Led by right-wing crank Steve King of Iowa, a group opposed to CIR was quickly mobilized. It seems some newer members hadn’t been properly schooled in GOP partisan politics:

“The new Republicans in the House and Senate — you know how their mind worked?” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a key senator involved in the effort. “It was, ‘We need to end the lawlessness at the border and build a fence but I love immigrants and I really think we should welcome immigrants and we need more immigrants.’”

“Well, that sounds good on the campaign trail, but few of them had actually read data about we admit a million on a path to citizenship every year, we have 600,000 guest workers in addition every year,” Sessions continued. “Few of them had asked themselves, in a time of high unemployment and slow growth, you want to increase the number?”

Yes, that Jeff Sessions, the man whose racist past was so notorious he couldn’t get confirmed for a seat on the federal bench. King’s group in the House and a Senate group including Tea Party leaders Ted Cruz and Mike Lee met frequently and bombarded Boehner’s annual House GOP retreat with hysterical propaganda when the speaker deigned to release a tepid set of “principles” that might lead to some sort of compromise.

The president nonetheless jumped on Boehner’s proposal as the basis for a deal and signaled he would be willing to sign something less than what the Senate had passed — at which point the Republicans quickly retreated, pretending they couldn’t go forward because they “couldn’t trust” the president. That’s when the immigration reform activists got testy and demanded that the president take unilateral action. Evidently their tone was more aggressive than the White House cares for. Not that any of it would have made any difference.

The article goes on to explain in great detail all the moves, right and wrong, in this round of debate over immigration reform. Reformers seemed to be persuaded that they had a chance, and maybe there was some brief hope at the very beginning. But it’s very hard to see how that could have happened when you look at one simple fact: a majority of Republican senators voted against the Senate bill. The idea that it could have ever gotten through the Looney Wingnut House of Representatives was a very, very long shot.

That group of consistently and mostly conservative Republicans who do not believe there should be any path to citizenship are the most active and energized participants in the GOP. They are backed up by a media machine that will launch into high gear the minute it looks remotely possible that an immigration deal might actually happen. These are the most active members of the conservative coalition and 73 percent of them believe that “immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care.”

No one should be too surprised by this. The American right has a long history of racism, xenophobia and nativism going all the way back to the 1830s. These are animating beliefs, the kinds of things that make people get off their couch and get involved in politics in the first place. They are the foot soldiers of the modern conservative movement.

The final quote of the article is a depressing example of Democratic déjà vu:

“Our biggest mistake was that we believed Republicans wanted to change course after the 2012 election,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, who has been working on the issue in Washington for more than two decades. “I don’t believe we will make that mistake again.”

Some Republicans undoubtedly did. It seemed that the GOP leadership did. The Chamber of Commerce did. Some churches did. But they are all under the thumbs of the radical, revanchist right wing to one degree or another. And it must also be noted that those other members of the GOP coalition who spent the last 30 years stoking that faction and feeding its hatred have only themselves to blame. This is their monster.
 
It will keep the GOP out of the White House and provide laughs.
 
Nice to see a progressive poster starting threads in a sea of BBC posts and rabid right wing nutjobs.


Anyway...they will never win the White House with their continued alienation of various groups of people

Blacks

Asians

Hispanics even the Cubans now

Gays

WOMEN

Non senile, intelligent thinking Whites


Damn, they won't have anyone in their camp for long except for aging, entitled hateful, bitter white males...who will die off soon....you can't win elections like that!
 
Last edited:
They will never win the White House with their continued alienation of various groups of people

Blacks

Asians

Hispanics even the Cubans now

Gays

WOMEN

Non senile, intelligent thinking Whites


Damn, they won't have anyone in their camp for long except for aging, entitled hateful, bitter white males...who will die off soon....you can't win elections like that!

The truely funny part is they realized this and mentioned that the Romney Campaign is the last time anybody would ever try that. . .and they haven't really changed course yet.
 
The truely funny part is they realized this and mentioned that the Romney Campaign is the last time anybody would ever try that. . .and they haven't really changed course yet.

They haven't, they are so rabid in their bitterness and hate; their party is imploding. You can't run on exclusion.
 
The truely funny part is they realized this and mentioned that the Romney Campaign is the last time anybody would ever try that. . .and they haven't really changed course yet.

Do you guys get a tweet telling you to regurgitate the latest party line meme of the week? Same non-sense ol' valium voice Chucky Schumer was spouting earlier in the week. Like you care about "saving the GOP." :D

I no longer support the Republicans because they are ridiculously liberal on too many issues, but the immigration issue is going to hurt Democrats this year and possibly in 2016 as well. I thought these polls showing 75% in favor of open immigration was bogus and its looking more and more like it was.
 
Do you guys get a tweet telling you to regurgitate the latest party line meme of the week? Same non-sense ol' valium voice Chucky Schumer was spouting earlier in the week. Like you care about "saving the GOP." :D

I no longer support the Republicans because they are ridiculously liberal on too many issues, but the immigration issue is going to hurt Democrats this year and possibly in 2016 as well. I thought these polls showing 75% in favor of open immigration was bogus and its looking more and more like it was.

The problem is that the demographics favoring Democrats tend to have lower turn out than the rabid, couch sitting, bitter old Republican voters (I guess because they have more time on their hands)

That's why GOP lawmakers do anything they can to limit voting such as eliminating early voting, Sunday voting, and requiring IDs because they know, high turnout hurts them!
 
The problem is that the demographics favoring Democrats tend to have lower turn out than the rabid, couch sitting, bitter old Republican voters (I guess because they have more time on their hands)

That's why GOP lawmakers do anything they can to limit voting such as eliminating early voting, Sunday voting, and requiring IDs because they know, high turnout hurts them!

What a constructive post. :rolleyes:
 
Do you guys get a tweet telling you to regurgitate the latest party line meme of the week? Same non-sense ol' valium voice Chucky Schumer was spouting earlier in the week. Like you care about "saving the GOP." :D

I no longer support the Republicans because they are ridiculously liberal on too many issues, but the immigration issue is going to hurt Democrats this year and possibly in 2016 as well. I thought these polls showing 75% in favor of open immigration was bogus and its looking more and more like it was.

I do care about saving the GOP. Either that or it's absolute destruction so the Democrats can safely split in two. An unstable GOP really isn't in anybody's best interest so long as the American political system allows them to paralyze the country.
 
Nice to see a progressive poster starting threads in a sea of BBC posts and rabid right wing nutjobs.


Anyway...they will never win the White House with their continued alienation of various groups of people

Blacks

Asians

Hispanics even the Cubans now

Gays

WOMEN

Non senile, intelligent thinking Whites


Damn, they won't have anyone in their camp for long except for aging, entitled hateful, bitter white males...who will die off soon....you can't win elections like that!

Except your glaring racism makes that totally untrue.

gty_herman_cain_jp_111012_wblog.jpg
ap_Susana_Martinez_wmain.jpg
l.jpg

Great-Black-Republicans-79326087977.jpeg
michael_steele.jpg
HRT_jpg_800x1000_q100.jpg


Just because the GOP doesn't give a fuck about them doesn't mean they don't love the GOP, because hateful fucks come in all colors, shapes, sizes and both genders.
 
Last edited:
A liberals idea of a rabid wingnut is someone with paid employment, a good credit rating, and married to an opposite sex person.
 
Another Tea Party controls the Republican Party thread.

:eek:

To be followed tomorrow by another Tea Party Dead thread...
 
A liberals idea of a rabid wingnut is someone with paid employment, a good credit rating, and married to an opposite sex person.


:confused::confused:
Troll harder

;)

Another Tea Party controls the Republican Party thread.

:eek:

To be followed tomorrow by another Tea Party Dead thread...

As opposed to 10335535 Obama is is a big black wolf threads made by a rotation of the same three rabid posters?
 
:confused::confused:
Troll harder

;)



As opposed to 10335535 Obama is is a big black wolf threads made by a rotation of the same three rabid posters?

Not one of those posters cares about the color of his skin, it is about the color of his character which is red.

:eek:

It is the Left which is consumed with the pride of having elected the First Black President and thus every attack on him is an attack which they take personally. Nobody, but nobody on the Left ever got this worked up over Jimmy Carter.
 
This is how bad it's gotten:

Thursday, Jul 3, 2014 02:15 PM EDT

Bill O’Reilly’s awful border plan: Insane, cruel and comparatively moderate

Bill O'Reilly has a terrible plan to imprison undocumented immigrants -- and he's to the left of some conservatives

Simon Maloy


The politics of immigration on the right are so blinkered that they make for some amusing intramural fights and a weird realignment of the moderate/extremist spectrum. For example, it is possible to refer to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly as a “relative moderate” on immigration, but that’s only because his views are tested against those of Laura Ingraham, whose policy preference is deport every single undocumented immigrant in the country and their families. They got into it on Fox News last night, and O’Reilly called Ingraham’s position “draconian,” which it absolutely is, and Ingraham accused O’Reilly of “adopting the argument of the left.”

So yes, Ingraham is an extremist and her immigration policies are morally reprehensible. But what about O’Reilly? Is he really a liberal softie when it comes to undocumented immigrants? As it turns out, he released his own plan this week for solving the country’s immigration problem that is “fair, humane, and can be implemented quickly.” O’Reilly’s plan is actually terrible. Not as terrible as Ingraham’s preferred solution, but still bad.

The Bill O’Reilly immigration solution relies heavily upon forcing Mexico to militarize both its northern and southern borders:

Number one, in order to stop the border madness, President Obama must demand that Mexico police its own borders. That means stopping tens of thousands of illegal aliens from crossing into Mexico from Guatemala. Not a hard thing to do if you post the military at border check points.

Who would have suspected that closing down a border through military force was “not a hard thing to do”? O’Reilly is correct that the 540-mile Mexico-Guatemala border is porous and not rigorously policed by either country. Militarizing it to the extent that O’Reilly expects would actually be expensive and supremely difficult, since it’s basically one long stretch of mountains and jungles. Also, it likely wouldn’t succeed. “Establishing a U.S.-style, militarized border with fencing, cameras, heat sensors and agents would be a costly undertaking and would likely fail to end smuggling,” the Washington Post reporting in 2011, “given the dense jungles and mountain ranges. Geographic boundaries, such as the Usumacinta River, tend to facilitate the movement of goods and people as trafficking corridors, rather than act as barriers.”

For the northern border, O’Reilly wants Mexico to militarize that one too (because, again, so easy!) and he also wants the National Guard to be sent south to help lock down the frontier from our end. Just send the National Guard, right? Problem solved!

Actually it’s really not that easy, according to a 2012 report from the Government Accountability Office. Mobilizing the National Guard requires planning and a clear objective – are they there to provide support to law enforcement, or actually engage in law enforcement activities themselves? Will state governors or the secretary of defense be in command? There are legal complexities and policy questions and jurisdictional issues that need to be hammered out, and even when a plan is formed it can take up to six months for the Defense Department to sign off on it.

But what if Mexico declines to undertake the allegedly not difficult task of militarizing their northern and southern borders? O’Reilly has an answer for that, too:

If Mexico does not cooperate on its borders, President Obama should issue trade sanctions against that country quickly. Mexico is the primary reason we have so much immigration chaos and it’s time our federal government acted responsibly to hold that country accountable.

Imposing trade sanctions isn’t as tidy a solution as O’Reilly makes it out to be. The U.S. and Mexican economies are tightly interwoven, and they both have economic leverage over the other. Millions of U.S. jobs depend upon trade with Mexico. A threat of trade sanctions by the U.S. would almost certainly result in Mexico threatening their own set of retaliatory sanctions. This actually happens fairly frequently, and it almost always results in both governments backing down because business interests in both countries really don’t want a trade war to break out.

As for undocumented immigrants inside the country, here’s O’Reilly’s “humane” solution:

And what about the undocumented aliens who are already here? First they all must register at their local post office within three months providing name, age, family members, country of origin and address in the USA. Every illegal alien adult must do that. If they don’t, it’s a felony. They go to a federal prison upon conviction.

There are currently some 216,000 federal prison inmates in the United States. The federal prison system is already overcrowded and straining to deal with the ever growing inmate population. There are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, who would have three months to register through the already overtaxed U.S. Postal Service, which does not currently list “immigrant registration” as part of its mandate. This math, as you can probably tell, does not work.

O’Reilly’s plan is, for lack of a better word, stupid. It has unrealistic expectations, would threaten relations with one of our closest economic partners, and would likely result in a law enforcement catastrophe. And that’s just it – as ridiculous as the O’Reilly immigration position is, he’s still to the left of a significant portion of conservative movement, which favors mass deportations over mere prison overcrowding.
 
Back
Top