rnc: Page 1
Ask Reince Priebus this very basic immigration question he doesn't realize he raised (RNC chairman) - 06/28/13
This site has covered politicians saying some dumb things, and the following quote from RNC chairman Reince Priebus ranks right up there (link):
In negotiations, when you show weakness and make weak demands, your opponents tend to take advantage of that.
Thus it is with the GOP quest for racial power (link):
RNC's Bush-linked Growth and Opportunity Project: GOP is "scary" to voters, must pass amnesty, Caring Conservatism - 03/18/13
Who better to solve the GOP's demographic problems then acolytes of the people who created the problem in the first place?
First the good news about the newly-passed GOP platform. From :
The official party position now reads that "State efforts to reduce illegal immigration must be encouraged, not attacked," and says the Department of Justice should immediately drop its lawsuits against controversial state immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.
The chart below  shows that the GOP has become a party of crazed accountants, obsessing over the budget deficit. At the same time, the immigration issue has become less important to the GOP.
That's despite immigration - which determines who lives in the U.S. and who votes - being a far more vital and fundamental issue than spending. Deficits can be reduced in future years with increased economic activity and other means, but immigration is forever and ever and ever.
A new and almost entirely worthless controversy involves Barack Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina tweeting a comment about chimichangas. No, really. But, it's not entirely worthless: I'll tell you below some of the things you won't hear from either side.
In case you haven't been following along, see  for a recap. Some notes:
The "Republican Liberty Caucus" ("RLC") is a nationwide, independent group of libertarians that present themselves as the "Conscience of the Republican Party". Think of them as a more established, slightly saner, slightly more principled, non-"NeoCon" version of the tea parties. Their policies - like those of other libertarians - are also a cruel joke, especially on California.
Like other libertarians, one of their policies - open borders  - renders all of their other policies moot. The loose/open borders they support sharply reduces the chances that we'll ever have limited government because those being allowed to immigrate to the U.S. in one way or another simply don't support limited government. And, anyone who lives in or has spent time in California has seen the impacts of porous borders: a society dividing into rich and poor with a dwindling number in between, increased pollution, increased traffic, school crowding, foreign citizens being allowed to take educational resources from Americans, and, of course, billions upon billions spent on educating the citizens of other countries or their children and providing other social services.
A good majority of those coming here through our current porous borders are low-skilled, low-wage workers (and their spouses and their children). Not only do they use social welfare services (broadly defined) at a higher rate than higher-wage workers, but they form a power base for the Democratic Party and the far-left. That massive immigration also forms a power base inside the U.S. for the Mexican government, with several past or present members of the California legislature acting like little more than agents of that government: Fabian Nunez, Gil Cedillo, and so on.
In summary, one of the libertarian policies of the RLC greatly helps their opponents (and a foreign government) gain power inside the U.S. and leads to more spending and less (in their minds) liberty.
If the RLC were in touch with reality they'd make ending the welfare state a necessary pre-condition to open borders. That way, we could just sit back and wait while they ended the welfare state (against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans). Then, we could all declare utopia and have the open borders they want.
The California chapter is having their convention on Friday, March 18, in Sacramento. If you're in the area, go make the above points to them, and point out that their election results  are only going to get worse.
Peaceful diplomatic relations, free trade and open borders enhance the ability of citizens to travel, engage in international commerce and support the pursuit of liberty everywhere in the world.
Presumably they mean what's called around here "loose borders". Around here, "open borders" means anyone - drywall hanger or terrorist - could cross into the U.S. at any time with no restrictions. Presumably, they only support loose borders where terrorists and criminals would be screened out. Although, when speaking of libertarians, it's not clear whether they'd even be willing to do that.
 The California chapter's endorsements are at rlcca.org/dw/doku.php/public:endorsements . All of those listed lost in the general election:
Not even a cutesy viral video of Nancy Pelosi as the "Wicked Witch of the West" could save Dennis ( the original apparently got a million views before it was pulled; a copy is at peekURL.com/vTrGnED ).
The GOP has released a draft version of their new "Pledge to America"; the official release will be tomorrow at a Virginia hardware store (for that extra-special down-home touch). They focus on five main areas:
* "A Plan to Create Jobs, End Economic Uncertainty, and Make America More Competitive"
* "A Plan to Stop Out-of-Control Spending and Reduce the Size of Government"
* "A Plan to Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care"
* "A Plan to Reform Congress and Restore Trust"
* "A Plan to Keep Our Nation Secure at Home & Abroad"
Following page upon page devoted to the first four, the last is tucked at the end almost as an addendum. And, tucked onto the end of that are the only three items directly relating to immigration:
* Establish Operational Control of the Border: We must take action to secure our borders, and that action starts with enforcing our laws. We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border and prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from interfering with Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands.
* Work with State and Local Officials to Enforce Our Immigration Laws: The problem of illegal immigration and Mexican drug cartels engaged in an increasingly violent conflict means we need all hands on deck to address this challenge. We will reaffirm the authority of state and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of all federal immigration laws.
* Strengthen Visa Security: To stop terrorists like Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, we will require the Department of Homeland Security to review all visa applications at high-risk consular posts and prevent aliens from attempting to avoid deportation after having their visas revoked.
Secure the border is oftentimes a dodge meant to hide other weaknesses on immigration; see the link. And, that's probably what it is in this case too, although the sentence about the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture are hopeful and more than I would have expected. See this for the backstory.
And, the third is, of course, what we should have been doing but apparently haven't.
That sounds good, but the plan doesn't include, for instance, anything about attrition (now the official state policy of Arizona), or supporting/opposing guest workers, anything involving language issues, or opposing anti-American bills like the DREAM Act. In fact, it doesn't say anything about opposing amnesty or comprehensive immigration reform at all. It doesn't point out how very vulnerable almost all Democratic leaders are to good arguments against their immigration policies. It doesn't acknowledge that the Hispanic vote is to a good degree an illusion. It doesn't acknowledge that massive illegal immigration is an indicator of massive private and public corruption and pledge to avoid any attempts to profit from or enable the profiting from illegal activity.
In other words, it's not completely bogus, but considering the source it's close.
Speaking on Univision, RNC chairman Michael Steele tried to distance the GOP from the new Arizona immigration law (link, video at peekURL.com/vjoo7o3 ). In a minor way this is a good thing in that by so doing he's distancing himself from the Republican base and dragging down other GOP leaders with him.
It's a bad thing because he's giving more power to the far-left, the Democrats, and other illegal immigration supporters. The voiceover to the clip referred to the Arizona law as "anti-immigrant" (in Spanish). Instead of calling them on such lies, Steele propped up the notion that in order to reach out to Hispanics you need to go on a Spanish-language television network that supports illegal immigration and pander to the likes of their host Maria Elena Salinas (she's at the end of the clip above). And, it's not going to do him or the GOP any good: he's promoting concepts that will help the Democrats undercut the GOP.
From the link here's what Steele said:
"The actions of one state's governor is not a reflection of an entire country, nor is it a reflection of an entire political party," he said, referring to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and her support for S.B. 1070.
"The governor and the people of Arizona made a decision that they thought was in their best interest, and that's the beauty of a republic, that's who we are."
Steele has faced criticism as RNC chairman because of his propensity for gaffes and difficulty managing the organization's finances and fundraising efforts.
He said Tuesday that since the immigration debate is now "in full bloom," he hopes that "level heads will prevail" in finding a "commonsense solution" to the immigration issue.
UPDATE: Steele has clarified his remarks to Soledad OBrien, showing again how incompetent he is:
"We support the Republican governor of Arizona in her efforts, but we also recognize that this is a transcendent issue and that for different parts of the country they look at it and approach it differently and Republican candidates and the Republican leadership in those states and those communities have to be able to respond to the needs at that time... We have pro-choice Republicans, we have pro-life Republicans, so I can't say that one of them is a reflection of the entire party... The same is true on this question on Arizona. Some people see that law one way, some people see that law another way. It depends on where you live and what your background is."
Opposing abortion is a popular issue, but so too are those who take the "pro-choice" view. The same isn't true of illegal immigration: large percentages oppose that. There are many good arguments to be made against illegal immigration and many ways that Steele could trap up its supporters. That's something he doesn't have the capability or integrity to do.
The Obama administration will probably file a lawsuit against Arizona over their new immigration law; per Jake Tapper it might come next week. Some GOP leaders are encouraging that party to use it as a campaign issue, but according to this (obviously speculative) report, John Cornyn - chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee - might be the sticking point:
But the consultant, who has urged clients to take a strong stance on immigration, does not expect Cornyn to make the Arizona law a national issue to batter Democrats, for fear of offending Hispanic constituents at home.
“Sen. Cornyn is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He’s being very good about balancing it, but at some point he’ll be called to task and asked, ‘Where are you?’ ” said the consultant, who requested anonymity because Cornyn could influence the hiring decisions of potential clients.
Recall that Cornyn was involved in helping Sonia Sotomayor get onto the Supreme Court by putting up a sham opposition. See his name's link above for more, and do a search for many more past entries.
You can contact him through cornyn.senate.gov
Two days ago I posted a notice that Michael Steele of the RNC was going to meet with extremist and Mexico-linked illegal immigration supporters and urged others to contact him suggesting that he handle the meeting in the correct way . Not surprisingly, Steele handled the meeting in the completely incorrect way (link):
According to a news release put out by the activists , he said he would try and recruit Republican support for comprehensive immigration legislation.
The RNC says he made no such commitment. The immigration activist who led the meeting said he did, but then [Steele] backpedaled after being signaled by a staffer that he may have gone too far...
...Pramila Jayapal, executive director of OneAmerica, the largest immigrant rights coalition in Washington state, said that Steele committed himself to a “holistic bipartisan consensus on immigration reform” and said he believes the Republican party should be “reaching out.” She said he said he would call Graham and work with the party leadership to “determine where things are in immigration reform.” But she said he stopped short of promising to recruit other Republicans.
But the second activist said he did in fact make that offer. (Josh Hoyt), executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said Steele went through a list of possible Republicans in the Senate who might sign on to the effort, said he would try to recruit another sponsor and agreed with the activists on their goal of getting legislation introduced by April 30.
But Hoyt said that midway through the meeting, an RNC staffer signaled to Steele that he should “walk back what he had said.” After that, Hoyt said, Steele said he emphasized that he could not “get ahead” of Republican Senate leaders.
Mr. Steele stressed that border security was the primary goal for Republicans in the immigration debate, several participants said. He seemed unfamiliar with the details of the proposal by Mr. Graham and Mr. Schumer, they said... But he “committed to looking at the Schumer-Graham bill to see how they can move forward with this bill,” said Tony Asion, executive director of (El Pueblo North Carolina), an immigrant organization in North Carolina, who is a Republican.
That underlines how in some cases those who harp on secure the border are just using it to mask how weak they are on amnesty.
 I posted that to FreeRepublic (and got the expected unhelpful responses: freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2483320/posts), Reddit (+2, -2), and a couple blogs. Needless to say, this is yet another example of how it's difficult to get people to do things that are effective. If I'd suggested waving loopy signs and throwing tantrums my postings would have probably received wide acclaim and maybe a link from Glenn Reynolds.
Michael Steele, extremist and Mexico-linked illegal immigration supporters to meet March 31 (after sit-in) - 03/30/10
RNC chairman Michael Steele will be meeting with a group of far-left illegal immigration supporters on March 31, 2010; the details on who's involved and the backstory is below. Most importantly of all, please take a few moments and try to contact him, his staff, or someone who can get a message to him and suggest that he handles this meeting in the right way.
Note: the only two contacts I've found are info *at* gop.com and on Twitter: @ChairmanMSteele but I don't know if the second is really his.
The wrong way, of course, would be for the chairman of the Republican Party to agree with far-left racial power supporters who have little or no use for our immigration laws. Another wrong way would be to simply disagree with them without showing how they're wrong. A mostly wrong way to handle it would be to simply nod along.
The best way to handle the meeting - and the way least likely to occur given his past statements  - would be for Steele to video the proceedings and show how they're wrong. Because the GOP is run by those who have little competence beyond cashing checks, don't expect that to occur. But, if by some miracle they get some sense they could easily devastate the arguments that the other side provides since those arguments are full of holes.
For instance, if they bring up the DREAM Act, Steele could point out that what they support would let illegal aliens take college educations from U.S. citizens. Or, he could point out all the many downsides of comprehensive immigration reform. Or, he could ask those attending about their interesting positions and links.
Per , this is who'll be there:
* Josh Hoyt of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR's president serves on an advisory council to the Mexican government and clearly has divided loyalties; they're also linked into the Illinois power structure, such as by having been appointed to a state council by Rod Blagojevich)...
* Christine Neumann-Ortiz of Wisconsin's Voces de la Frontera (intimidated a politician by surrounding their house; opposed an immigration raid that no doubt freed up jobs for Americans; said a citizenship test is like a poll tax)...
* Tony Asion of El Pueblo North Carolina (group co-founded by Andrea Bazan of the National Council of La Raza; supported drivers licenses for illegal aliens and AgJobs in a letter signed by many other groups)...
* Eun Sook Lee of the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium (opposes immigration enforcement)...
Others at the meeting:
* Tim O'Harrow, of the Council of Rural Initiatives and the Dairy Business Association...
* Pramila Jayapal of OneAmerica...
* Ricardo Perez of the Hispanic Affairs Pastoral Project...
* a student who supports the DREAM Act...
* Sergio Suarez, "successful businessman and entrepreneur (Chicago)".
The meeting was initiated after a group of around forty pro-illegal immigration activists affiliated with the Fair Immigration Reform Movement engaged in a sit-in at the offices of the RNC and demanded a meeting with Steele. This was in conjunction with their big march, and video is at peekURL.com/v9kwtkq
Barack Obama appeared at a nationally-televised House Republican retreat in Baltimore yesterday at which several leading Republicans asked him questions which he then handled with ease. He "p0wned" them so badly that Fox News cut away from the coverage twenty minutes before it ended. What the House members asked were weak, open-ended question or simply requests. They weren't adversarial questions designed to reveal flaws in his policies or statements. Because of that, they allowed him to say things like this:
And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me, "You could do this cheaper and get increased results," that I wouldn't say, "Great." ...The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.
He also shined them on: "Here's what I'm going to do, Mike: What I'm going to do is I'm going to take a look at what you guys are proposing" and referenced those who say tea parties types of things: "But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot."
This incident shows a structural problem the GOP has: their leaders are great at cashing checks, but not so great at representing the interests of the American public. They aren't going to change, so if you want to oppose Obama in a smart and effective way you'll have to do it yourself. See the question authority page for a plan (note especially that the questioner has to be experienced), and here's our guide to asking politicians tough questions.
The Arizona Republican Party launched a Hispanic website earlier this week; announcement at azgop.org/news.asp?artid=156, the site itself at azhispanics.ning.com. As can be seen on the attached image, neither the site nor their other related social media efforts seem to be doing that well. But, at least it's good to know that John McCain has one friend.
Their chairman Randy Pullen - someone who seemed somewhat OK in the past - says:
"Too often Hispanics in Arizona have felt left out of our political system... This website seeks to engage those who may be looking for a new way to get involved with shaping the future of our state. Democrats have consistently taken their vote for granted and we share their feeling that our government has gotten seriously off track. Combined with our message of traditional family values, I believe that our principles mirror those of Arizona’s Hispanic population."
The last is just a nicer way of saying "we're going to demagogue on social issues". And, how they're helping the Democrats and the far-left was explained in this post about John McCain similarly being confused. If they want to undercut the Democrats, encouraging Hispanics to think of themselves as Hispanics in a political sense is not the way to go about it.
RNC considers loony Obama "socialist" resolution, including deceptive immigration position - 11/23/09
Back in May, conservatives on the RNC considered a resolution under which they'd call the Democratic Party the "Democrat Socialist Party". Now, some of the same brain surgeons are back with a resolution urging "Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama's socialist agenda" (link). While there's certainly the possibility that Obama has sympathies on that direction, and it's a fact that he has multiple associations with those on the hard left, he doesn't have a public "socialist agenda". The most that could be said is that it's trending in that direction more than to the center or right. Further, the idea that he's pulling the strings on everything the administration does is absurd.
The same RNC members also want to drive RINOs out of their party by requiring that the RNC can't fund those who disagree with more than two out of ten "key public policy positions". The immigration-related position is deceptive, and almost assuredly that was intentional:
We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.
1. Almost all top Republicans - including amnesty supporters such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain could sign on to that, because they play word games in which they pretend that the comprehensive immigration reform ("CIR") they support isn't "amnesty". For example, here's video of McCain pretending he doesn't support "amnesty". By using "amnesty" instead of CIR, the resolution appears to be trying to fool people.
2. One way in which you'd supposedly be able to support legal immigration by opposing amnesty would be through CIR: supporters claim that CIR would reduce illegal immigration; see safe legal orderly for some examples. Whether they mean it in that way isn't clear, but it's likely.
3. That provision has no details, no indication of any limits on the amount of legal immigration, no requirements or goals on assimilation, and no indication of whether it would include guest workers and the like.
And, none of the other provisions even mention the sleazy ways - such as identity politics - that the Democrats are able to obtain power, much less suggest that the GOP counter-act those power grabs.
UPDATE: The draft RNC platform from August 2008 also included a sham anti-"amnesty" provision. In 2004, Tom Tancredo had problems getting immigration provisions in their platform and instead a muted version of George W Bush's position was adopted; see this and this. From the other side, a 2006 Democratic Party strategy document didn't mention immigration at all. Also, an earlier version of this post inadvertently made it appear that the proposal would require complete agreement with all ten provisions; to get funding, someone would only have to agree with eight of the provisions or more.
If you're a Republican or you want an effective, pro-American alternative to the current Democratic Party, the attached video of RNC chairman Michael Steele is a must-see. While it was edited by ThinkProgress and it may be missing key parts, the parts that are clearly in context do not make Steele look very good at all.
Before the election, many Obama opponents kept making the same mistakes over and over; those mistakes had the ultimate impact of helping Obama win. Several days before the election I listed twenty mistakes those opponents made in satirical form; as if to reinforce my point, that list was immediately deleted when I posted it to FreeRepublic. A couple days before the election, I accurately predicted how the "Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry" story would end; simply telling the truth would have actually been effective.
Now comes RNC member Jeff Kent and RNC Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. with a proposed RNC resolution with Kent as the chief sponsor suggesting that the Democratic Party changes their name (news story here, description here):
In just a few months, the goal of the Obama administration has become clear and obvious - to restructure American society along socialist ideals. The proposed resolution acknowledges that and calls upon the Democrats to be truthful and honest with the American people by renaming themselves the Democrat Socialist Party. Just as President Reagan’s identification of the Soviet Union as the evil empire galvanized opposition to communism, we hope that the accurate depiction of the Democrats as a Socialist Party will galvanize opposition to their march to socialism.
1. It's false to say that Obama, the leadership of the Democratic Party, or the great majority of Democratic leaders are socialists. Some of them may lean in that direction more strongly than others, and that can be pointed out on a case-by-case basis. Misleading and smearing about a whole group is not a wise idea.
2. Some of Obama's less-informed fans might favorably associate Obama with socialism and support that ideology because they think he does.
3. Millions of mainstream Democrats - including those who are more conservative on some topics than many GOP leaders - will take umbrage at being called socialists. This resolution isn't going to win the GOP any converts from that group or crossover voters.
4. Millions of independents and moderate Republicans will no doubt think the GOP has taken leave of its senses.
5. The MSM's "fact checkers" will rush to remind everyone that Obama and the Democrats are not socialists. That will have the impact of both hurting those making that claim and helping Obama.
Why are Jeff Kent, James Bopp Jr., and the rest of the RNC so intent on helping Obama?
On Thursday, a group of putatively moderate Republicans will announce a new effort called "National Council for a New America". While they claim that they're non-partisan, it's clearly a GOP effort. And, the list of those involved that CNN has obtained (link) includes several supporters of comprehensive immigration reform.
Payback: union labor might be requirement on federal construction projects (example: the stimulus bill) - 02/07/09
On Friday, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order  that contains this:
...it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.
"Project labor agreements" mean the exclusive use of union labor, as described elsewhere in the Order. A "large-scale" project is one over $25 million, and there would no doubt be a large number of such projects under the stimulus plan. On the one hand, this might minimize the number of illegal aliens employed under the plan. On the other, it's a sleazy payoff to unions, and a percentage of the money that Obama would distribute to them would find its way back into the coffers of the Democratic Party and their politicians.
Unfortunately, the RNC incorrectly implies that it would be a requirement when it's only an "encourage[ment]", saying (gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=1a19aba7-f84c-4a3a-aba0-60ab872fab6e):
President Obama’s executive order will drive up the cost of government at a time when we should be doing everything possible to save taxpayer dollars. Federal contracts should go to the businesses that can offer taxpayers the best value – not just the unions who supported the Democrats’ campaigns last year. Quietly signing executive orders to payback campaign backers undermines Obama promise to change Washington. It is a disappointment for Americans hoping for more transparency and less politics as usual in Washington.
Michael Steele is the new chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC). On tonight's PBS NewsHour, David Brooks said he'll probably avoid "anti-immigrant" talk, and we know what that means: Brooks thinks Steele will support illegal activity. While Steele's exact positions remain to be seen, consider the June 14, 2007 article "Secure the border first" (link). "Securing the border" is generally a dodge, see the link. And, although he was opposed to 2007's comprehensive immigration reform bill, the "first" leaves an opening for some form of amnesty after the border is supposedly secured. Note that the five points listed at the Townhall link were almost all more or less included in the CIR bill and that Steele's position seems to be similar to that of John McCain.
That's driven home by this December 16, 2008 interview:
...The same [problem with a hole in a boat] is true with immigration. The core problem is that you've got a hole in the fence. Plug the hole. Use technology, use manpower, use all the strategies that you need to secure the national borders of this country. And then we can talk about the 12 million people who are here illegally, what we’re going to do. I think America will be much more receptive to that conversation knowing that no more are coming in and that the hole has been closed. And then we can deal effectively with the water in the boat.
Highly possible translation: after the borders are secure, Americans can be convinced to accept an amnesty. Asked about what he'd do about the 12 million (or so), he said:
Well, that’s something for the national debate. There are any number of ways that you have to deal with that. Do you want to create a pathway to citizenship? Are you talking amnesty? Ronald Reagan did amnesty. He did the first amnesty bill. A lot of people tend to forget that. In 1986, what was the problem? There was no effective strategy to deal with what? The hole in the fence. They kept coming. And 20 years later, what are we looking at? 12 million additional people, the hole has gotten bigger, and the problem hasn’t gone away. America’s response to amnesty was, ‘Not again, if you don’t fix the hole. If you don’t close down that border and make sure that no one else is getting over the fence, or under the fence, or through the fence.’ That’s what everyone sees as the problem. It’s not the individuals who are here, necessarily. It’s the ones who are still coming in, because our border is porous. Every other country protects its sovereignty, and no one cracks a peep. The United States rises up and says, ‘We too shall protect the sovereignty of this nation by protecting our borders,’ and everyone looks at us like we’re enemies of the state. Well, we’ll keep looking that way because we’re going to deal with this issue, and we’re going to effectively do what we need to do as Americans to make sure the integrity of this country, its internal integrity, is secure. And then we can talk about everything else. Everything else -- jobs, programs, employers -- all that stuff you can deal with much more effectively, because now you’re dealing with a smaller pool of folks because there are no more coming in.
Nothing in there would foreclose eventually giving an amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Notably, Steele isn't supporting attrition in order to reduce the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. over time. He simply wants to stop the future flow, as did Fred Thompson before getting a clue.
I guess I should have taken a look at his record before he was elected, but it's never too late to encourage him to support attrition.
2/1/09 UPDATE: Chris Wallace interviewed him on Fox News Sunday and didn't ask the right questions about this issue, playing into the confusion over the positions of John McCain and George W Bush vs. the positions of those who want to "build the fence" (link). As discussed above, the latter position is a dodge used by McCain and Bush, when the ultimate goal is "reform". Steele didn't say anything to contradict that:
I think the GOP's position on immigration is very much the position of many, many Hispanics who are in this country... The GOP's position is secure our borders first. Let us know and let us make sure the American people know that we've taken care of the important business of dealing with illegal immigration into this country... You cannot begin to address the concerns of the people who are already here unless and until you have made certain that no more are coming in behind them... No change in the position on the party on that... [Leaders in the Hispanic community] understand the importance of making sure the United States' borders are secure.
The first is "Barack the Magic Negro" (link), a take-off on Al Sharpton based off of a Los Angeles Times guest editorial from David Ehrenstein called, ta da, "Obama the 'Magic Negro'" (link). MSM sources bury the genesis of the song at the end or pretend that the genesis is only what Saltsman says rather than what is clearly the truth. And, this has also caused the formation of a circular firing squad and caused Saltsman to go on the defensive and issue PC pieties. For examples of all those, see "RNC Chairman Candidates Split on Charged Stocking Stuffer" (link) from Michael Shear of the Washington Post. This quote from Saltsman is buried at the end:
"Liberal Democrats and their allies in the media didn't utter a word about David Ehrenstein's irresponsible column in the Los Angeles Times last March. But now, of course, they're shocked and appalled by its parody on 'The Rush Limbaugh Show,' " Saltsman said in a statement today, referring to the op-ed article that reportedly inspired the song lyrics... "I firmly believe that we must welcome all Americans into our party and that the road to Republican resurgence begins with unity, not division. But I know that our party leaders should stand up against the media's double standards and refuse to pander to their desire for scandal."Another track is "Star Spanglish Banner". The lyrics for that are below and you can hear it here. I assume that the person who made that video is unaffiliated with Saltsman or Shanklin, but the images are fitting considering that the topic of the song is political support for illegal immigration. About the only thing somewhat offensive about the song is the kindergarten-level pun on "Jose"/"O say", and perhaps the somewhat inaccurate use of the word Spanglish; regarding the last, see Cheech and Chong.
The rest of the song is a satire on uninvolved citizens and on politicians who support illegal activity, and so because of that it's easy to see why the MSM, the Democrats, and some Republicans would want to portray it in a bad light.
UPDATE: Jim Acosta of CNN offered a report on the "controversy" that completely failed to mention the LAT piece. Not only that, but it included less-than-flattering stills of those involved, and rolling video of a raging Rush Limbaugh without providing any sort of context. And, that's not all: it included Karl Frisch of Media Matters for America referring to the song as "hate", and implied that rightwing radio was full of "hate". But, wait Acosta had even more: he offered a highly edited quote from Saltzman; presumably he cut out any sort of effective defense Saltzman had provided to CNN.
Continuing the idiocracy, the titular MSNBC host said she wouldn't find it funny if someone referred to her as "Tamron Hall the Magic Negro Anchor Lady". Obviously, whatever argument she's trying to make is fallacious, given - once again - the original LAT piece that kicked everything off. Needless to say, idiots are trying to resell her illogical comments, including [[ Nicholas Graham]] of the Huffington Post (huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/29/msnbc-anchor-i-wouldnt-fi_n_154107.html) and Ben Armbruster of ThinkProgress (thinkprogress.org/2008/12/29/tamron-hall-magic-negro).
Newsday has a report (link) similar to, but not as good as, the one in the previous post:
Even as Michael Bloomberg heralded New York's diversity Monday, President George W. Bush's controversial plan to put in place a temporary worker program is getting no major billing at the Republican National Convention.