Republican David Dreier ought to be nervous...very nervous.
If he is voted out of office, he has only himself to blame.
KFI's John and Ken will be devoting the next two months towards kicking Dreier out of office. Their show attracts a wide coalition of voters from Reagan Democrats to Buchanan-style Republicans (and many ideologies inbetween).
KFI is currently the single most listened to talk station in the entire country and has over 100,000 listeners in Dreier's Congressional District alone. (Full disclosue: I work for KFI and have occasionally filled in as producer of the John and Ken show even though it is not the show I regularly work on.)
Many people want somebody, anybody, to get a hold of this country's problem with its borders.
Unfortunately, Dreier is part of the problem - not the solution. If an influential Republican has to be sacraficed in order to wake up Washington about this issue, so be it.
I am sure it won't help him that moderate Republican Doug Mcintyre over at KABC also regularly calls for Dreier's head on a stick when it comes to the immigration issue.
Dreier will have Republican-leaning personalities on the two biggest talk stations in Southern California pushing hard for his ouster nearly every day for the next two months. This is one instance where a Republican should rightfully be afraid of the media...
Posted by Justin Levine at September 8, 2004 09:05 PM | TrackBackWHY GOING AFTER DREIER IS A BAD MOVE:
(1) Dreier has had his seat locked up since 1981. He has been in Congress since before quite a few of the voters in his district were born.
(2) Dreier is sitting in a safe district, and thanks to the partisan Democrat gerrymandering in 2000 (which also protected many senior republican incumbents), he will probably win by an even bigger margin than he won by in 2000. Nothing short of an act of God could unseat this man.
Here are the results of the 2000 election:
David Dreier, Republican 116,557
Janice M. Nelson, Democrat 81,804
Randall G. Weissbuch, Libertarian 2,823
Lawrence Allison, Natural Law 2,083
Joe “Jay” Haytas, American Independent 1,932
(3) So some radio guys want to lobby the voters to kick out Dreier over, of all issues, IMMIGRATION, by telling them to vote for a democrat instead. The radio guys don't seem to understand that, even though Dreier has a lifetime C+, which is not a good indicator since he did have 4 'A's out of 8 graded issues, and his 2 F's were for going along with amnesty and worker-visas even though those enjoyed broad support (i.e. not much in the way of alternatives), HIS OPPONENT is almost certainly going to be worse!
(4) From Democrat Cynthia Matthews' web site:
"The beauty of this nation lies with its diversity of people in its kaleidoscope of ethnicities, creeds, and colors. I will defend and protect the inalienable rights of “all.”"
[In other words, 'all' includes illegal aliens.]
"I also believe that the issue of undocumented immigrants taking jobs is really a "wedge issue" being used to divert us from the real issues of "legal" foreign labor and off shoring of American jobs taking away our high quality opportunities."
[Forget the 8-10 MILLION illegal aliens sucking up tens of billions in taxpayer funds, straining our criminal justice, school, and health care systems, and driving down wages for the poorest Americans, we have to hunt down a few hundred thousand SKILLED foreign workers! The H-1B visa workers help our economy instead of draining it. It is better to ship skilled, educated people IN than ship the jobs OUT, because the MONEY STAYS HERE. H-1B visa are being abused, but this issue is a drop in the bucket compared to the harm caused by the rampant illegal alien population.]
"Undocumented immigrants typically take low paying jobs that most Americans do not want to do."
[Americans want those jobs, but not at the depressed wage levels the illegals are willing to work at. Instead, Americans sit on welfare. If we kick out the illegals, those minimum wage jobs will start to provide Americans a living wage. Employers will have to pay about $10 billion a year more in wages, but the taxpayers will save many times that because citizens will be able to stay off welfare and the massive costs of providing schooling, health care, and jail cells for illegals will be curtailed.]
"I also feel we need to take a closer look at the political and economic conditions that are the cause of this mass exodus of immigration to our borders. We need to examine our trade and foreign policies to determine if they are creating some of these conditions."
[two words: BLAME AMERICA]
"While in Congress I will work to ensure every American has access to quality, affordable health care and medicines... This is beneficial for Senior Citizens, the Disabled, Children and every Adult in America."
[EVERY ADULT in America includes illegal aliens, folks. This woman wants to use your tax dollars to reward illegals who break the law with incredibly expensive social services at your expense.]
"with California being the fifth largest economy in the world, it is imperative to provide health coverage for all. This plan can be accomplished with very little cost and without raising taxes."
[one word: delusional]
"I will fight for the rights of all working Americans, to ensure adequate and fair living wages"
[If she really cared about AMERICANS getting a living wage, she would support deporting the illegals, who deflate wages by injecting a glut of cheap labor into our economy. She does not.]
"I strongly oppose H-1B, which allows foreign workers to be granted work visas and compete for tech jobs with the U.S. labor."
[She attacks SKILLED, EDUCATED workers coming to the states who are SPONSORED by local companies, but she opposes taking action against POOR, UNEDUCATED, UNSKILLED, CRIMINALS who leech off of our economy. H-1B visa holders are a net gain for the US economy, because they are all working in various skilled jobs and paying income tax, while using few government services. Illegals on the other hand pay very very little in taxes, and rely heavily on government services, resulting in a substantial net loss. In addition, illegal immigrants are disproportionately represented in the criminal population, while H-1B visa holders are less likely than citizens to become criminals.]
"Historically, unions are weakened during high immigration periods such as we have today."
[THE REASON THIS WOMAN HATES H-1B HOLDERS AND NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH UNIONS. Unions by definition represent skilled labor. The unskilled labor force can't unionize, so there are no unions suffering from illegal immigration. H-1B visa holders are skilled workers, so they can come in and compete for union jobs, so this democrat has to protect her special interest slave-masters, organized labor, by helping them shut out any semblance of competition, even if there aren't enough Americans with the right skills to do some of the jobs these companies need. If this woman gets her way, companies will just ship jobs out instead of shipping people in, and the end result is a lower tax base and a weaker economy.]
"I strongly support the right of labor to organize and strike to..."
[... ravage our economy! Does everyone remember all those dockworkers who screwed our economy and cost our state and our country BILLIONS because they were trying to prevent INNOVATION in the form of machines from replacing expensive, inefficient human labor? How about the supermarket strike, which victimized us all and cost the supermarkets and union employees BILLIONS in lost profits and wages? Yeah, and the lost causes those unions were fighting for made the economic damage all worthwhile. *rolls eyes*]
(5) In summation:
- Dreier is bad, Matthews is worse.
- Republicans are bad on immigration policy, democrats are worse.
- It is stupid for a conservative to vote for a liberal based on the immigration issue alone.
- Immigration is an important issue but not the only important issue.
- It doesn't matter what two DJs do, because Dreier is going to win anyway.
- It is laughable that two DJs can hold better sway over conservatives than Dreier can. He has more conservative credibility in his toe than they have between them, especially now that they are lobbying voters to try to get a liberal elected at the expense of a conservative.
Oh and if people think I'm wrong when I say the democrats are worse on the immigration issue than the republicans, just look at the grades of the representatives here in California:
DEMOCRATS: GPA = 0.45
A's: 0
B's: 0
C's: 1
D's: 13
F's: 19
REPUBLICANS: GPA = 3.05
A's: 10
B's: 4
C's: 3
D's: 3
F's: 0
Ideally all republicans would get A's, but as things stand now there is a huge difference between republicans and democrats on immigration. Republicans are not the ideal choice for those who care about immigration issues, but they are an infinitely better choice than the Democrats.
source information was taken from the link found in the radio's website. here is a direct link:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/delegation.php3?District=CA
You missed the point. "Dreier is bad, Matthews is worse" isn't the issue. The issue is "Dreier should be better." This will send a message to those politicians who talk a good game but don't deliver that they better start delivering. No one expects the Dems to be better, but Republicans need to do a better job.
Illegal immigration is a very major issue in SoCal, and it affects most other aspects of life here. For instance, all the money that's spent on the LAUSD, half of the working-age residents of LA County being "low-literates," etc. etc.
Let's turn it around. What is your solution to make Dreier (or Bush, or other "conservatives") better on immigration matters? Sending letters and holding townhall meetings doesn't seem to be working.
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at September 9, 2004 01:01 PM (Permalink)My comment wasn't posted, so, trying again:
How exactly does Kaltes propose making Dreier et al. get serious about immigration reform?
Recall that sending letters, making phone calls, and holding town hall meetings isn't working.
So, what exactly is the alternate plan?
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at September 9, 2004 01:05 PM (Permalink)Placing new comments at the top of the list is damn confusing.
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at September 9, 2004 01:06 PM (Permalink)I'M nervous that you'd support deposing incumbent CA Republicans after the primaries in support of Democrats in the general election.
Which do you think is more likely:
a) The defeat of an incumbent Republican Congressman by a Democrat will be taken as a sign that CA voters want a hard-line GOP response to immigrant over the borderless policy held by the solid Dem majority in Sacramento
or
b) The defeat of an incumbent Republican Congressman by a Democrat will be taken as a sign that CA voters are embracing the borderless policy held by the solid Dem majority in Sacramento, and applying it to federal elections
The Lonewacko Blog:
"You missed the point. "Dreier is bad, Matthews is worse" isn't the issue. The issue is "Dreier should be better." This will send a message to those politicians who talk a good game but don't deliver that they better start delivering. No one expects the Dems to be better, but Republicans need to do a better job."
(1) That is like reasoning that it is justified to become a Nazi spy because you don't think FDR is doing enough to fight fascism in the world. It is an extremely perverted tactic that does more harm than good.
(2) Voting a republican out of office in favor of a democrat who is worse on immigration sends the signal not that republicans need to shape up on immigration, but that democrats can use this as a wedge issue to cause republicans to defect. You don't realize that you are PLAYING FOR THE OTHER TEAM.
(3) The way you show Dreier you are unhappy is by voting against him in the PRIMARY. That is what the primary is for: telling a same-party candidate you think that he does not best represent you. Betraying your party and your principles on EVERY OTHER ISSUE is NOT the answer.
Which do you think is more likely:
a) The defeat of an incumbent Republican Congressman by a Democrat will be taken as a sign that CA voters want a hard-line GOP response to immigrant over the borderless policy held by the solid Dem majority in Sacramento
Of course that's how it will be perceived. As pointed out above, J&K reach a fairly wide audience, and they aren't going to keep this campaign a secret. People higher-up than Dreier are aware of J&K's campaigns against illegal immigration, and when this succeeds - or even comes close to succeeding - it will send a very clear message to those at the highest levels in the GOP.
Betraying your party and your principles on EVERY OTHER ISSUE is NOT the answer.
If I wanted to be inflammatory, I could talk about the members of the GOP who come very close to betraying this country. This country is much more important than any political party.
The GOP is definitely a major part of the problem. It's not just Democrats who are responsible for massive legal and illegal immigration.
My Immigration category is chock full of examples, and if you want the shorter version there are a few examples in the comments here.
I'm not a member of the GOP (nor the Dems), but if I were I would not hesitate to put the country above the party every time.
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at September 9, 2004 06:36 PM (Permalink)lonewhacko:
The problem here is that you are making huge assumptions. You assume that replacing Dreier with a democrat will have a big impact on the GOP. That somehow this self-sabotage 'protest vote' will "send a very clear message to those at the highest levels in the GOP". It won't. The republicans are not going to make big changes because ONE seat is threatened. Balance that against the massive nation-wide immigrant population and you can see how little this little revolt has on a cost/benefit analysis in where to set your immigration policy to get the most votes.
Small scale anti-immigrant uprisings have happened before, and they FAILED dramatically. All they accomplished was to paint conservatives as racist xenophones led by a vocal cadre of extremists. All they accomplished was to shift local politics to the left and to alienate swing voters. Small-scale immigration-issue revolts WILL NEVER ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING OF VALUE when you look at the big picture.
What conservatives must do instead is build a case. Conservatives need to be vocal and WELL-EDUCATED about this issue. The only way we are going to have the big-picture change we need on immigration is to get the whole public concerned about this, just like they are concerned about jobs and the economy. The fact is that illegals are hurting Americans economically and by taking jobs and pushing down wages. The liberal lie that illegals do jobs Americans don't want needs to be exposed and refuted loudly and often until finally people wash that liberal garbage out of their skulls.
The facts are on our side. The truth is on our side. Instead of fighting over the immigration issue in a half-assed, piecemeal way, we need to BUILD OUR CASE, and GET THE WORD OUT. We need to talk not about how we FEEL, but instead about the FACTS. When the immigration debate focuses on he-said-she-said, the liberals win. When the debate focuses on rock-solid facts, figures, and statistics, conservatives who support immigration reform WIN. period.
Build the case. Collect the evidence. Raise awareness with the public. Trying to bully either party is not going to work, only the voters as a whole can do that can do that. Instead of trying to win over the politicians with threats, you need to win over the voters by educating them.
This web site has the right idea: http://www.cis.org/
It is the holy grail of immigration reform advocates. It stockpiles the facts and figures that prove that immigration, both legal and illegal, has run amok in this country. People need to be citing these figures on Meet the Press. That is how we are going to get immigration reform, NOT by appealing to the social/cultural impacts of immigration. Stick to the economic facts.
Attacking Dreier is a bad move because it will not 'wake up' the republican party. They know the facts, and the facts tell them that they lose more votes than they gain by being tough on immigration. The only way the republican party will change is when the swing voters start caring about immigration.
Little conservative hissy fits aren't going to win over the swing voters.
Go ahead and vote for Matthews, but don't dare call yourself a good conservative if you do. A good conservative works with other conservatives for change, not by throwing tantrums and voting for liberals when their conservative representative doesn't see eye-to-eye with them on every issue.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 9, 2004 11:41 PM (Permalink)I don't get it. The "report card" you link to has a fairly good grade for Dreier, faulting him only on amnesties. Compare him to Barbara Boxer, for example, who seems to prefer illegal immigrants over, say, citizens.
Not that I agree with the whole anti-immigrant issue, which Americans for Better Immigration seems to champion. America should have subtantially more legal immigration. It's the illegal stuff that needs severe reform.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at September 10, 2004 09:48 AM (Permalink)Oh my. "anti-immigrant " used in two different comments.
The republicans are not going to make big changes because ONE seat is threatened.
No, but it will encourage the others to do better.
Balance that against the massive nation-wide immigrant population and you can see how little this little revolt has on a cost/benefit analysis in where to set your immigration policy to get the most votes.
Funny, I don't think a good conservative like, say, Ike would have ever thought of such a thing. He would instead have looked at the millions of people from other countries in the U.S., realized it was a tremendous risk to both our security and our society, and taken steps to reduce the numbers of illegals. That's actually fairly easy to do: levy fines against those companies that employ illegals. Hundreds of thousands of illegals will deport themselves.
No party should be safe from the consequences of opposing the will of the great majority of the people or exposing us to undue danger.
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at September 10, 2004 10:44 AM (Permalink)lonewhacko,
If voting against Dreier actually had even a slight chance of resulting in better a immigration stance from either party, maybe such a vote would make sense.
A vote against Dreier will accomplish nothing more than replacing a guy with a C grade on immigration with a woman who is going to get an F. Whatever tiny chance there might be of improving immigration policy is more than offset by the greater chance that the little revolt will have the opposite effect.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 10, 2004 03:17 PM (Permalink)If voting against Dreier actually had even a slight chance of resulting in better a immigration stance from either party, maybe such a vote would make sense.
We're going around in circles here. You think it won't have an effect, I think it will. I think it might help wake the GOP up that the policies of their current leadership aren't popular and need to be changed.
If you want to see exactly how the GOP is responsible for CA's mess as much as the Democrats, read this interview: "Rounding up all illegals 'not realistic'". The Bush administration's "Border Czar" explains that he's basically not doing the job Americans want him to do.
(Few people want him to "round up all illegals." That's a strawman argument. In the first five months of this year, just one company in the whole U.S. was fined for immigration violations. By refusing to enforce the laws against employing illegals, the (former) INS is basically just declaring Open Borders.)
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at September 11, 2004 11:20 AM (Permalink)I hope somebody here has actually bothered to look at Matthews' website. Because she is very much better than Dreier on immigration. Check it out before you assume she isn't.
>>> We are literally drowning in a flood of foreign labor. And instead of throwing the hard-working men and women of our district a life preserver or a safety line, Representative Dreier is shoving a hose down our throats.
>>>Instead of a safety line, the only line we are being offered is the corporate line – that free trade agreements like NAFTA and FTAA, and legislation like HB-1, will result in both cheap consumer goods and more jobs for Californians....
and on from there....
Read it for yourself.
Posted by: Kyle Bennett at September 11, 2004 08:27 PM (Permalink)Actually Kyle Bennett, I DID read through Matthews website and she is FAR WORSE than Dreier on immigration.
I have already explained why by taking the TEN most relevant quotes from her site and explaining why those quotes demonstrate that her immigration policy is horrible.
The ONLY thing she wants to go after are H-1B immigrants because they threaten the beloved unions that have BOUGHT AND PAID FOR her candidacy. She is a special interest sellout, and she is not just selling out herself, she is selling out the American people.
She wants to claim she is tough on immigration by targeting hundreds of thousands of skilled workers who contribute to the economy, pay their taxes, and who can be kicked out pretty easily once congress decides to crack down. By contrast, illegal aliens are FAR more numerous, estimates at 8+ million, with estimates up up to THREE MILLION more coming in this year alone.
Matthews has screwed up priorities. She thinks illegals have every right to be here, she refuses to enforce the law against them, and she wants to FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 12, 2004 11:18 PM (Permalink)Kaltes, give it up.
Matthews is far better on immigration than Dreier or even most other Republicans.
Anyone who is interested, go look at Matthews website for yourself.
Immigration reduction, by the way, is also a labor and an environmental issue so you are going to find a lot of liberals supporting it as well as conservatives, even if the Dem party leadership right now doesn't. Matthews is taking a stand against the position of her own party leadership on this issue, and for that reason alone she deserves our support.
Posted by: zxcv at October 20, 2004 10:08 AM (Permalink)Many of you seem to be missing the point of "Political Human Sacrifice". The point is that Republican voters are willing to throw out a Republican pollitician, even if otherwise desirable, as a message to Congress. The message is: Illegal Immigration is costing the citizens of California BILLIONS. We want our Congressmen to work to stem the flow of illegal aliens into California. And if you are not willing to do so, well, then, we hope your next employer will be more understanding.